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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the observable consequence — team members see shared memories automatically in search and session boot — plus plan gating and the cost asymmetry of undo. It doesn't cover duplicate-share behavior or propagation timing, but that is largely covered by idempotentHint.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded with the plan caveat and undo pointer appended. Every sentence carries information.

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?

There is no output schema to explain, annotations carry the safety profile, and the description still adds the effect on team members, the plan requirement, and the removal counterpart. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 both parameters are already documented; baseline is 3. The phrase 'all memories with a given tag' mildly clarifies that tag is a batch filter rather than a single memory reference, but adds no format or constraint detail 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?

Specific verb (share) plus scope (all memories with a given tag) and destination (a team). It is immediately distinguishable from the inverse sibling muninn_team_share_remove, and an agent can act without opening the schema.

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?

States the operative context (paid plan only) and points to muninn_team_share_remove for the reverse action, including that removal is free. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or prerequisites around team membership, but the usage picture is clear.

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