karea_share_project

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

Discloses that sharing is recorded and gives roles-based visibility/edit capability. Without annotations, more behavioral details would be beneficial (e.g., whether owner can be changed, if email must exist, default role). The role discrepancy with schema 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?

Two sentences covering main action and effect. No extraneous text. Could be slightly improved by aligning roles with schema and noting default.

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; description does not mention return value or success/failure indicators. Missing info on permissions or preconditions. For a sharing action, this is insufficient context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline 3. But description adds a role ('commenter') not in schema, which contradicts and may mislead. No additional semantic info beyond schema for other params. Deduction for error.

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?

Description clearly states the action (give access), resource (project), and means (by email at chosen role). It distinguishes from siblings as the only sharing tool. However, it mentions 'commenter' as a role but schema only includes owner, editor, viewer, causing slight confusion.

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?

Implies usage for sharing projects, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No context about prerequisites (e.g., must be project owner). Adequate but not prescriptive.

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