create_authz_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether it creates a new share, requires specific permissions, or returns the created entity. The description is too terse to inform the agent about side effects or prerequisites.

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 that front-loads the action and key parameters. It contains no filler, but could be slightly expanded for clarity without becoming verbose.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify that it creates a new authorization share and differentiate from update/delete siblings. It fails to mention creation or return value, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the full 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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting 'optional target and permission level,' but does not explain relationships or constraints. Baseline 3 as schema carries the load.

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 tool's action: 'Share a resource with a scope and optional target and permission level.' It identifies the verb 'share' and the resource, listing the key components. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'create_authz_role' or 'list_authz_shares' by specifying the action and parameters.

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_authz_share' or 'delete_authz_share'. It lacks prerequisites, when-not-to-use conditions, or context for selection among sibling authorization tools.

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