oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: granting writer access to all files/folders, updating owner_email for future sharing, and optional email detection. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are relevant for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and parameter details in a clear 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for an AI agent.

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's complexity (a mutation with side effects), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters well, but could benefit from mentioning potential side effects or prerequisites, such as required permissions or idempotency.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter, but the description fully compensates by explaining the 'email' parameter's purpose ('Email to grant access to'), optional nature ('If omitted'), and fallback behavior ('detects from folder owner'). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Grant writer access', 'updates') and resources ('all files/folders in the sync root', 'stored owner_email'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by addressing a specific post-sync permission issue, unlike general sync or auth tools in the sibling list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('after initial sync when files were created by the service account and are invisible to the folder owner') and its purpose as a 'one-off fix'. It implicitly distinguishes from ongoing sync operations by framing it as a corrective action.

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