Share With Client Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the real constraints: the client sees it read-only on the project page, a document is shared only in its current version, it requires a project visible to its client, and a task's files follow the task. Reversibility is implied via 'visible: false'. It stops short of stating failure behavior (e.g. unknown title) or confirmation of what changes on the project page.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then the alternative tool. Dense and nearly waste-free, though the parenthetical '(a document only in its current version)' interrupts the flow and the sentences run long.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the effects, preconditions, and the sibling alternative well enough to call correctly. It does not say what the response looks like or what happens when the title matches nothing, which is a modest gap for a mutation tool without 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, including visible's true/false meaning. The description reinforces the visible:false semantics and the project-visibility precondition but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Shows a document, file or link already on the project to the project's client, or hides it again') and covers both directions of the toggle. It is clearly distinguishishable from the sibling write_document/add_attachment, which are named as the wrong tool for creating new items.

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?

Explicitly gates usage: 'Only when the person asks', and gives the alternate path: 'To add something new for the client, use write_document or add_attachment with client_visible.' Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else are stated with the selecting condition.

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