Share Group With Users

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

The description indicates a write operation, consistent with readOnlyHint=false, but adds no information about whether the shared_with list replaces or merges with existing shares, nor about any side effects like removing users not listed. Given annotations already signal mutation, this adds minimal extra 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 sentence of ten words, with no redundant content. It is appropriately brief for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple, schema covers all parameters, and annotations cover safety, but the description lacks usage alternatives and behavioral details such as whether the operation is additive or replace-all. This leaves an agent with some uncertainty about exact semantics.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 phrase 'Add or update' with a clear resource ('the users a sharing group is shared with'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_sharing_update_group (which likely updates group metadata) and lyzr_sharing_create_group.

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 alternative sharing tools. It does not mention that this is the tool for modifying the user list specifically, nor does it contrast with update_group or other sharing operations.

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