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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: authorization rule (author or org admin who can read), no-op behavior for unshared targets, failure semantics ('unshared: false, reason: not_found'), and the effect on visibility/scope after the last share is revoked. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with edge-case semantics; parameter names are backticked for scannability. It is somewhat long but nearly every sentence conveys distinct, non-redundant information about edge cases.

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 a mutation tool with 4 params, full schema coverage, and an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description still covers auth, scope interaction, no-op, and failure modes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the all=true vs target behavior and the no-op case, but adds little parameter detail beyond what the schema already documents for memory_id, target_id, target_scope, and all.

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 ('Revoke') and resource ('memory share') with issue reference #1088, and the tool name is unambiguous relative to the sibling list (no other *share* tool exists). An agent can immediately tell what this does.

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 explains the two modes ('Drops one share target, or every share when all=true') which gives intra-tool usage guidance, but never names a sibling or states when to prefer this over an alternative such as memory_forget or memory_write_policy_set. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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