create_servers_by_machine_id_shared_servers

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

Annotations show this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds little beyond the 'Legacy v1' label and endpoint. It does not disclose what side effects occur on the server, whether invitees are notified, or any permission requirements, so the agent is left guessing what sharing entails.

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 short and front-loaded with the 'Share Server (Legacy v1)' label, which is good. However, the endpoint and Args lines largely duplicate data already available in the tool name and schema, so the compactness comes at the cost of useful content rather than trimming redundancy.

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 a one-parameter tool with an output schema, this could be complete with a sentence explaining the sharing effect, but it is not. The description omits the purpose, required permissions, and the relationship to the newer create_shared_servers endpoint, leaving a legacy boundary case for the agent to resolve elsewhere.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter semantics, but it only restates the obvious: machine_id is 'the unique machine identifier of the server'. It offers no format guidance, source for the ID, or relationship to the other tools, so it barely improves on the schema title 'Machine Id'.

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 identifies the resource and verb with 'Share Server' and gives the endpoint POST /servers/{machineId}/shared_servers, so an agent can infer it creates a shared-server record. However, it never explains what 'sharing a server' actually does, and the name create_servers_by_machine_id_shared_servers conflicts slightly with the terse 'Share Server'. It doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling create_shared_servers.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. The 'Legacy v1' label hints at newer options but does not name them or give selection criteria, and the tool description never mentions create_shared_servers as a sibling alternative.

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