create_smb_share

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but only mentions a path constraint. It omits effects (e.g., whether permissions are required, if changes are reversible, or if a service restart is needed), leaving the tool behavior opaque.

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 concise at two sentences, with no fluff. However, it is under-specified; conciseness here sacrifices completeness, but the structure is efficient for what it includes.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and many sibling creation tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values (despite an output schema), error conditions, or how this tool fits into the broader system of SMB shares.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the 'path' parameter (must start with '/mnt/'). For other parameters ('name', 'comment', 'readonly', 'browsable'), no semantic information is provided beyond the schema's type/defaults.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'SMB share', making the tool's purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_smb_share' and 'list_smb_shares', but lacks details on scope (e.g., whether it creates on a specific server).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_nfs_export' or 'create_dataset'. The only usage hint is the path constraint '/mnt/', but no prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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