Share Workflow

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description merely restates the action without disclosing behavioral details beyond what annotations already indicate. It does not mention whether sharing is additive or replaces existing shares, whether it sends notifications, or if specific permissions are required. Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, but the description adds no extra behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear, and front-loaded sentence of eight words. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no output schema and multiple required parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the effects of sharing, any prerequisites (e.g., ownership or admin rights), or what the result of a successful share looks like. This leaves the agent with limited understanding of the tool's full behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters, so the description adds little beyond reinforcing that the action involves email addresses. The phrase 'with one or more email addresses' does clarify the email_ids parameter but does not explain relationships or constraints among the parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Share') and clearly identifies the resource ('a workflow') and the target ('with one or more email addresses'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_workflow, update_workflow, or delete_workflow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lyzr_update_workflow or the sharing group tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when sharing is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.