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

Annotations already cover the write/open-world profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the code is displayed only once and must be handed over whole, the recipient approves via a card before use, they can only write in their own project, and the owner sees progress only if the recipient shares back. Minor tension with destructiveHint=false since `remove: true` detaches a skill from a code, but that is scoped removal rather than deletion, so it is not a contradiction.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries new information about modes, code visibility, or recipient constraints. The long colon-and-semicolon chains make it dense to parse, but there is no filler to cut.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates for the most important case by warning that the code is shown once and must be given in full. It omits error cases (unknown skill or code) and does not restate the non-idempotent nature flagged in annotations, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly 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?

With 75% schema coverage the baseline is high, yet the description still adds real semantics: `share` is an id from list_brains with shares: true, `label` only matters in the no-share case and is how the connected person sees the code, and `remove: true` detaches rather than deletes. Only vague on `name`, which the schema already covers.

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 specific verb and resource ("Añade una skill del usuario a un código") and immediately splits the operation into two distinct modes: with `share` it appends to an existing code, without it creates a new one. An agent can tell this apart from generic skill tools like get_skill/save_skill because the resource being produced is a shareable code, not the skill itself.

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 an explicit gating condition ("solo cuando él lo pida") plus clear branching rules: use `share` for an existing code, omit it to create a new one, and use `remove: true` to detach. It does not name alternatives such as share_brain or share_practice, so the agent must infer which sibling handles other sharing flows.

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