share_page

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full weight and does disclose consequential behavior: link_new invalidates the previous link, link_on grants access to anyone without an account, and the return value (current public link plus people shared with) is described despite no output schema. It does not state who is permitted to change sharing or whether unsharing is reversible, which is the remaining gap for a permission-sensitive mutation.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and no clause is filler; every action definition earns its place. It is delivered as one long run-on sentence with semicolon-separated segments, so a brief structured list would scan faster, but density is high and redundancy is absent.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action semantics, the email prerequisite, the destructive effect of link rotation, and the return shape. Preconditions such as required permissions and what happens to existing shares when team_off is applied are left unstated.

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 only 33% and the enum values carry no per-value descriptions in the schema, yet the description defines all seven actions and their semantics. It also clarifies that `email` applies only to user_on/user_off and where valid values come from, adding substantial meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Change sharing of a page") and then decomposes the tool into its seven distinct actions, each with a plain-language meaning. This lets an agent pick the right action without opening the schema, and it names a sibling (list_people) as the source of member emails, separating it from the page CRUD siblings.

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 maps each action to its use case: link_on for anonymous public access, link_off to disable, link_new to rotate the link, team_on/team_off for org-wide visibility, user_on/user_off for a single named member with the `email` parameter called out. It also directs the agent to list_people to obtain valid emails, so the prerequisite is stated rather than inferred.

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