share_spreadsheet

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that sharing is done via email, notifications can be sent (default true), and returns a dictionary of successes and failures. This adds useful behavioral context that the annotation alone does not provide.

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 well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, making it easy to parse. It is moderately concise, but every sentence is informative; could be slightly more terse but still effective.

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 presence of an output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters with examples, and return structure. Missing details like error handling or permission requirements, but overall sufficient for a sharing 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: spreadsheet_id as ID, recipients as a list of dicts with email and role examples, and send_notification with default. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 Google Spreadsheet with multiple users via email and assigns roles. It uses a specific verb (share) and resource (spreadsheet), and there are no sibling tools with similar functionality, ensuring distinction.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when needing to share a spreadsheet with specific roles via email). No explicit alternatives are provided, but since no other sharing tool exists among siblings, the guideline is clear enough for selection.

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