memory_team_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 the return shape, required TEAM_ID/USER_ID configuration, non-idempotent behavior ('repeated calls create additional shared items and audit entries'), and a known failure mode for itemType=observation. This is rich behavioral disclosure that an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then side effects and requirements, then routing and the failure caveat. Every sentence carries actionable 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the return shape, required environment context, side effects, related tool, and a known defect. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by flagging that the enum-like itemType value 'observation' currently fails, which the schema does not convey. It doesn't document itemId syntax 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 ('Publish an existing memory or pattern into the configured team's shared feed') and immediately distinguishes itself from memory_team_feed, the read counterpart. The scope ('team's shared feed') and accepted inputs are unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear routing context ('Use memory_team_feed to inspect shared items') and a guardrail ('share only content approved for that team'). It stops short of stating explicit exclusions or a true alternative publishing path, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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