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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description still adds real value: the URL is stable, the new state is visible immediately, and prior recipients only see added dishes on their next tap. It stops short of spelling out the blast radius of `remove` on existing recipients or any ownership/auth requirement.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the operation list comes first and the propagation caveat second. Every clause carries information; nothing restates the name or title.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation set and the visible effects well. It leaves out per-call limits (40 items) and failure modes for an unknown or expired shareId, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 67%, with `title` and `remove` having no description in the schema; the prose covers both ("renames it", "removes dishes") and also names the add/addNames/ttlHours paths. It does not clarify the add-vs-addNames exclusivity or the 40-item cap, so it improves on the schema without fully closing the gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Extends or edits a collection link by its shareId") and then enumerates the exact operations: append dishes, remove dishes, rename, or reset validity. This is enough to tell it apart from the collection-creation sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by "extends or edits" an existing link, which suggests it is not for creating a new one, but no sibling is named and there are no explicit when-not conditions or preconditions such as link ownership or expiry. An agent must infer that joiva_share_collection is the creation path.

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