share_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation writes and grants access to others, and that no email is sent unless sendNotificationEmail is true, but it omits permission requirements and whether existing sharing is replaced.

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 three short sentences, front-loading the mutation/exposure warning, then the core purpose, then the notification default. It is efficient and has no filler, though the opening fragment is slightly terse.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context such as required permissions and whether the call overwrites existing sharing. It covers purpose and notification behavior, but not enough to handle edge cases confidently.

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 63%, so the schema documents some but not all parameters. The description maps 'user, group, domain, anyone with the link' to the type enum and clarifies the notification default, but adds little for fileId, role, emailAddress, expirationTime, or message beyond the 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 names a concrete action—granting access—and enumerates the targets: user, group, domain, or anyone with the link. It also signals the write/external-sharing nature with 'WRITES and reaches other people,' though it does not explicitly name the inverse sibling, unshare_file.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as unshare_file or get_file_permissions. The only conditional detail concerns sendNotificationEmail, which is parameter behavior rather than routing guidance.

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