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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the end state (private) but says nothing about required permissions, whether the share link/registration is revoked or merely hidden, reversibility, or error behavior for unshared tools.

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?

A single short sentence with the outcome front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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?

With no output schema the description needn't explain returns, and the two parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, for an unannotated mutation tool, the absence of permission, idempotency, and failure-mode context leaves a meaningful 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 description coverage is 100%, including the non-obvious tenant_key precedence rule, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is already documented, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('take a shared tool back to private'), making the inverse relationship to host.tool_share inferable. It does not explicitly name that sibling or otherwise differentiate from the other host.tool_* tools, so it falls short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (ownership of the tool, an existing share), and no statement of what happens if the tool is not currently shared. The agent must infer all of this.

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