share_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't disclose that this is a mutation operation (changes document permissions), doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. While it mentions optional email notifications, it doesn't explain what happens when notifications fail.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential details in two additional sentences. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific functionality details without redundancy or fluff.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core sharing functionality but lacks important context about permissions needed, side effects, and error handling that would be crucial for safe agent operation.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of 'role' parameter ('reader, writer, or commenter') and clarifying that email_message is 'custom' for notifications. However, it doesn't provide additional context about document_id format or email_address validation beyond what the schema already covers.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Share a Google Document'), identifies the resource ('with a specific user'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on permission granting rather than document creation, editing, or other operations. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the permission levels and notification options.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_permission' or 'list_permissions'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing ownership/editor access), nor does it clarify when email notifications are appropriate versus silent sharing.

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