card_set_shared

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

Annotations provide almost no behavioral context (only openWorldHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a concrete side effect: '双端均共享的关系及正文写入项目文件' indicates that relationships and content are written to the project file. However, it remains ambiguous about what '双端均共享' means and does not mention reversibility, permissions, or failure behavior.

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 a single dense sentence, which is concise. However, the wording is awkward and packs multiple concepts (baseline, dual-sided sharing, project file writing) into a way that reduces clarity. It earns credit for brevity but not for effective structure.

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?

With 0% schema parameter coverage and minimal annotations, the description leaves the agent without enough information to call the tool correctly. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the meaning of parameters, the precise action, and the expected side effects remain underspecified. For a tool that writes to project files, this is inadequate.

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 for undocumented parameters. It references 'sharingBaseline', which loosely maps to the baseline parameter, but gives no explanation of id, shared, or how baseline should be structured. The boolean 'shared' is the core parameter, yet the description never explicitly states its role.

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 states a verb ('adjust') and a resource ('project sharing'), but the phrasing is convoluted and references card_describe's sharingBaseline without clearly explaining what the tool actually does. It does not adequately distinguish itself from siblings like card_set_relation or card_configure, which also deal with card/project modifications.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of card_describe hints at a prerequisite, but there is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or explicit alternative routing. An agent would have to infer the correct invocation context.

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