opencode_session_share

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). It doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether the session becomes permanently public, if it requires authentication, or if it affects other users). The annotations cover the mutation aspect, but the description fails to add context about consequences or reversibility.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation and avoids unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

The description is too sparse for a mutating tool with no output schema details. It doesn't explain the effect of sharing (e.g., creation of a public URL), whether the operation is reversible (though a sibling unshare exists), or any prerequisites (e.g., session existence). Given annotations indicate destructive behavior, the description should provide more context but does not.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (id and directory) with 100% coverage. The description does not mention parameters at all, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 'Share a session publicly' clearly states the action (share) and the resource (a session) with a specific scope (publicly). It distinguishes from the sibling tool opencode_session_unshare by implying the opposite action. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'publicly' entails (e.g., generating a link, making it visible to all), which is a minor 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like opencode_session_unshare or other session management tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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