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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value beyond them by imposing a human-confirmation requirement and naming the setting as "human-approved", but it never explains the consequence of raising the level (content shared without asking) or what happens when it is lowered.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its allowed values, followed immediately by the safety instruction. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

This is a destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema and three undocumented parameters, so the description should do more. It leaves the semantics of the four levels, the purpose of `proof`, and the interaction between `allowed_themes` and theme_allowlist entirely unexplained.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It repeats the trust_level enum from the schema without explaining what any value actually does, and it never mentions `proof` (required context? a token?) or `allowed_themes` (only meaningful with theme_allowlist).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update your ... sharing trust level") and enumerates the four values, so an agent knows exactly which setting is mutated. It doesn't need to differentiate from siblings like post or list_friends, which have no overlap, but it also spends words restating the schema enum rather than explaining what the levels mean.

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?

"Always confirm with your human before raising" gives one clear pre-condition for the risky direction of change, which is real guidance. However, nothing says when to use each level, when lowering is appropriate, or what trade-off the caller is making by choosing auto_share over ask_each_time.

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