create_smb_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation, implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The parameter list is structured but could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, though it lacks completeness for a mutation tool.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 4 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameters but misses critical context like behavioral traits, error handling, and output expectations, which are essential for safe invocation.

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 lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Path to share', 'Optional comment'), adding basic semantics beyond schema titles. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., path syntax), constraints, or examples, leaving significant gaps.

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 action ('Create a new SMB share') and specifies the resource type (SMB share). It distinguishes from siblings like create_dataset or create_nfs_export by specifying SMB shares specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_smb_shares or other share-related tools beyond the creation action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing path), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like list_smb_shares for context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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