share

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it's a write operation that changes scope, does not duplicate memory, is one-directional, and costs 1 operation. It also mentions prerequisites (memory ID from recall/remember) and scope limitations.

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 concise but dense, with every sentence contributing useful information. It could be slightly better structured with separators for use cases, but it remains clear and front-loaded with purpose.

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 low complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, side effects, and constraints. No gaps remain for an agent to understand the tool correctly.

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 100%, and the description adds meaning by explaining where memory_id comes from, defining target_scope enum values with usage context, and clarifying when user_id is required. It adds value beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Widen a memory's visibility scope so other agents can access it.' It specifies the verb (widen/share) and resource (memory), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recall and remember by focusing on visibility changes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (e.g., for user preferences share to user scope, for team conventions share to org scope) and when not to use it ('Do not use to restrict scope'). It also explains the directional nature (agent to user to org).

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