Share a memory namespace with another handle. Permission is 'read' (read-only) or 'write' (read + write + delete). Owner only — registered handle + secret required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | owner handle (you) | |
| secret | No | ||
| grantee | Yes | handle to share with | |
| namespace | Yes | namespace to share | |
| permission | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: ownership requirement, permission semantics (read vs write with delete), and that the action modifies access rights. No contradiction with annotations.
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, front-loaded with action and constraints. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or extraneous information.
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?
Covers core action, prerequisites, and permission details. Lacks mention of return value or confirmation, but given the tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, this is a minor gap.
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 has 5 parameters with ~80% description coverage (only 'secret' lacks description). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., explains permission enum values). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('share'), the resource ('memory namespace'), and the scope ('with another handle'). It distinguishes from siblings like store_memory, search_memory by specifying sharing semantics and ownership constraints.
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?
Explicitly states prerequisites ('Owner only — registered handle + secret required') and defines permission levels ('read' vs 'write'). Lacks explicit mention of alternatives but provides sufficient context for when to use this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.
57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.
Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.