vk_put_projects_d6723872eddd

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

The description discloses useful traits like authentication requirements, write-access prerequisite, and parameter aliasing. However, it incorrectly states that the body field is 'optional' when the schema marks it as required, which is a misleading behavioral contradiction that undermines trust.

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 reasonably concise but contains redundancy: 'Share a project via link' appears twice. This repetition wastes a sentence and could be tightened. The structure is clear otherwise, starting with the main purpose.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description carries full responsibility. It covers the action, permission, and authentication but omits return-value expectations, error behavior, and fails to correct the body optionality contradiction. Incomplete for a mutation proxy tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds general guidance about 'path and query parameters being top-level fields' and alias support, but the false 'optional' statement regarding the body adds confusion rather than value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Share a project via link' and specifies the underlying endpoint 'PUT /projects/{project}/shares'. This distinguishes it from sibling proxy tools, which target different endpoints or resources.

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?

Provides clear context for use: requires write-access to the project and authentication. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the endpoint specificity and permission requirement give sufficient guidance for a proxy tool.

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