share_form

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Shares') and outcome ('Updated sharing status'), but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether sharing is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 appropriately sized with three concise sentences that front-load the purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides usage context, and the third indicates the return. There's no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points or clearer separation.

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 operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it should do more to address the mutation's implications given the absence of annotations.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention any parameters explicitly. However, since there's only one parameter ('form_id'), the agent can infer it from context, and the description implies the tool operates on a form. With low schema coverage but minimal parameters, the description doesn't add specific parameter details but doesn't need to compensate heavily, aligning with the baseline for this scenario.

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: 'Shares form with user's groups for collaborative use' specifies the action (shares), resource (form), and target (user's groups). It distinguishes from siblings like 'unshare_form' by indicating sharing rather than unsharing, and from 'publish_form' by focusing on group collaboration rather than general publication. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'unshare_form' in the same sentence.

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 implied usage context: 'Make custom forms available to team members' suggests when to use it—for team collaboration on forms. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'unshare_form' or 'publish_form', nor does it mention prerequisites such as form creation or permissions. The guidance is useful but lacks specificity about exclusions or comparisons.

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