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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It correctly identifies the toggle behavior and the social value, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether unsharing immediately removes from leaderboard) or authentication needs beyond 'npub' for billing.

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-load the purpose and provide meaningful context without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return values. However, it lacks explanation for the dpop_token parameter (empty schema description) and does not mention that the npub is described as required in the schema but listed as optional. This gap reduces completeness.

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?

The schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions, including entry_id, npub, and shared. The main description adds context on the purpose and pricing but does not detail the parameters further. The dpop_token parameter has no description; the schema defaults should be noted. Overall, the description adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 tool toggles a journal entry's share flag, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like optionality_get_shared_entries and optionality_list_journal by focusing on the action of toggling.

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?

The description provides context on when to use (to control sharing for leaderboard visibility) and the pricing (0 sats). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives like optionality_get_shared_entries for viewing.

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