Set subscription share permissions

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral nuance: the top-level array semantics, the requirement to preserve existing entries, the fact that it may notify recipients or change tenant data, and the correction about PUT vs. a Python sample using POST. This exceeds what annotations provide without contradicting them.

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 somewhat long but every sentence adds value: API path, array semantics, method correction, preservation instruction, body fields, reference, and prerequisites. The sentence about the Python sample is slightly verbose but still useful. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps important warnings later.

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 operation's complexity (PUT replacing share permissions), the description covers prerequisites, array behavior, and preservation guidance. It points to the official operation for full details and includes a reference link. It does not describe the response or error cases, but with no output schema and a mutation operation, this is a minor gap.

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 body schema is a generic recursive anyOf, so the description compensates by listing the actual array entry fields (shareType, sharedWith, permissibleActions) and clarifying that these describe array entries, not root object keys. This is exactly the kind of semantic addition needed beyond the generic schema. The subscriptionId path parameter is self-explanatory, and confirm has its own schema description.

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 states the exact operation ('Set subscription share permissions') with the HTTP method (PUT) and API path. It is immediately clear this is a mutation for subscription share permissions, distinguishing it from siblings like xmatters_get_subscription_share_permissions by verb and method.

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 clear context: it is a PUT operation, requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and warns to preserve existing entries. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., get_subscription_share_permissions) or state 'use this when modifying share permissions,' but the API path and verb make the intended use obvious, and the caveats are valuable guidance.

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