doc_share

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the sharing-for-editing behavior and the two outcomes (grant vs share_token), which is useful. But it omits important behavioral context such as required permissions, reversibility, interaction with TTL/max_uses, or what happens to existing shares.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action first and then the two modes, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no schema-level descriptions, this definition is too sparse. While the output schema may cover return values, the semantics of sharing, grant, token generation, and the remaining parameters are under-specified for reliable invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning to to_agent_id, while role, agent_id, max_uses, ttl_seconds, and doc_id remain unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly configure the tool across its six 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 gives a specific action ('Compartilha para edição' - shares for editing) on a document resource and clearly identifies two modes: grant via to_agent_id, or share_token without it. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like doc_unshare or doc_claim.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or conditions are stated. The only usage hint is the conditional behavior of to_agent_id, but that addresses parameter usage rather than tool selection.

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