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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds valuable context beyond them: shares link to the original rather than making copies, group owners may re-share, restricted account types cannot use it, and the return shape is disclosed. The destructive implication of 'private (unshare)' is conveyed but not emphasized as a warning, which keeps this below a 5.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose, then moves through modes, sharing semantics, permissions, and return value. The dense parentheticals are efficient, though the sentence is long and could be more scannable.

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-oriented tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, modes, permission constraints, sharing semantics, and return fields. It is nearly complete; the main gap is that parameter interdependencies (for example group required with mode=group) are left to the schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by clarifying 'status (read-only)' and that all_groups includes groups joined later, as well as tying default to new recipes. It does not fully explain required parameter combinations, such as group being needed when mode=group, but it improves on the schema descriptions.

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: 'Set who can see one recipe, menu or list, or the default for NEW recipes.' It is clearly distinct from siblings like manage_family (group administration) and update_recipe (content edits), and the enumerated modes make the scope unambiguous.

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 explains the meaning of each mode, including that status is read-only and private unshares, which effectively tells an agent when to use each path. It also states account-level exclusions ('Home Cook and read-only accounts can't'), though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for related tasks such as group management.

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