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

Annotations only give the coarse profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent); the description adds the two-phase preview/confirm gate and that shares are revocable and live, which is genuinely useful state-changing behavior. It stops short of covering permissions, re-share/additive behavior, or failure modes when the person is unknown.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the confirm gate, then reversibility. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key flow (preview then confirm) and reversibility, which is enough to call it correctly. It does not describe what the successful share response contains, but with no output schema declared that gap is minor.

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 coverage is already 88%, including the `confirm` token semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the confirm/preview relationship and maps 'topics' vs 'memories' to the concept/ids parameters, but adds little syntax or format 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Shares topics or specific memories with a member of the user's team (cloud-hosted brains)'. The parenthetical constrains where it applies, and 'live and revocable' implicitly distinguishes it from share_revoke without ambiguity.

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?

Gives explicit procedural guidance: without `confirm` it previews and shares nothing, with the token it shares exactly the previewed scope. That is a clear condition for each mode. It does not name sibling alternatives such as share_revoke or shares_list, which keeps it short of a 5.

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