share

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 well: it discloses gating prerequisites, the concrete side effects on success ('marked shared locally and a copy is pushed to the cloud under the same id'), the force override escape hatch, and the default-cloud behavior. This is rich mutation semantics an agent needs before calling.

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-loads the one-line purpose, then proceeds through gating, effects, and parameters in a logical order. It is dense but each sentence is purposeful; the gating clause is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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 a mutated-state tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers preconditions, success side effects, override, and default targeting. Failure/error behavior and idempotency are not addressed, leaving a minor gap, but the essential call contract is present.

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 the schema already documents name, cloud, force, and initiative. The description largely restates the force and cloud semantics already present in the schema ('Pass force=true to override the guard', 'default: the configured default'), adding little beyond baseline.

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 ('Share a node to the team cloud') and immediately layers in the distinguishing gating mechanism (initiative must be `team` + pre-share secret guard). An agent can identify this as the cloud-publish mutation apart from siblings like unshare, link_cloud, and pull.

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 clear preconditions ('initiative must be `team`... node must pass the pre-share secret guard'), an override route (force=true), and multi-cloud targeting (pass `cloud`). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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