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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the recipient's permissions in detail: they can view, edit, and create packages including future ones, while deletion and further sharing remain with the owner. It also clarifies that remove=true revokes a share rather than deleting the child, which is valuable behavioral context for a non-read-only tool.

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-loaded: it states the sharing action and scope first, then permissions, then remove/list behaviors. Each sentence contributes necessary information without repetition.

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 multi-mode tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation patterns and permission behavior well. The remaining gap is that class/class_id are never explained, and return values for the list mode are only implied.

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 50%, and the description adds meaning for email, student, remove, and share_id, including the listing behavior when student/email are omitted. However, it does not explain the roles of class or class_id, leaving two of six parameters without added semantic guidance.

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 core action in German: sharing a child with all current and future learning packages with another teacher via their classdesk email. It also covers the remove and list modes, so the tool's scope is understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as share_file or list_support, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 explicit mode conditions: remove=true with share_id ends a share, and omitting student/email switches to listing grants (given/received). That is strong internal guidance. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when another tool should be preferred.

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