Share Report or Dashboard Folder

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

The annotations already provide read-only/destructive/idempotent hints, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context—it doesn't mention what happens on re-sharing or the effect on existing shares—but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Shares...'), and contains no unnecessary information. It is concise and well-structured, earning a top score.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, nested objects), the description covers the core purpose and usage context. However, the territory inaccuracy and lack of clarity on the accessLevel parameter relationships leave gaps. The schema covers most parameter details, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description incorrectly includes 'territories' as a valid recipient type, which contradicts the schema enum and could mislead the agent. It also fails to clarify the relationship between the top-level 'accessLevel' shorthand and the per-recipient accessLevel in the shareWith array, making the parameter semantics less reliable.

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 'Shares a Report or Dashboard folder' and sets access levels, which is specific and distinguishes it from folder creation tools. However, it lists 'territories' as a recipient type, which is not in the schema enum (only Role, Group, User, RoleAndSubordinates), making the scope partially inaccurate and reducing clarity.

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 explicitly says 'Use after creating a folder to grant team members access,' giving a clear sequential use case. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is sufficient for this focused tool. No misleading guidance is present.

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