Document Share

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

Annotations already mark this as non-readonly, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description goes further: it explains that sharing broadens access without copying, duplicate-link behavior is upstream-controlled, and retries cannot be assumed idempotent. It also documents success/error return shapes and MCP error behavior, adding real behavioral context.

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 moderately sized but front-loaded with the core purpose and then covers usage, behavioral caveats, and return formats in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place, though the return-format and MCP-error sentences add density.

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 single-parameter write operation with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential context: who may use it, what side effects occur, what makes it non-idempotent, how to undo it, and what response shape to expect. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100% and the parameter description already explains that document_id must be a shareable DOCUMENT asset UUID, not a filename, and must satisfy ownership checks. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action ('link a shareable document asset into the configured campaign'), scopes it to DM only, and contrasts it with siblings like document_unshare and document_upload. This makes the tool’s role immediately distinguishable from other document and campaign tools.

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?

It gives explicit when/how guidance: use campaign_document_list to inspect existing links, document_upload to create an asset first, document_unshare to revoke, and explicitly warns against document_delete for this purpose. The DM-only restriction further clarifies appropriate invocation context.

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