memory_publish_shared

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a write/publish action with cross-agent visibility and imposes a sanitization constraint, which is valuable. However, it does not mention persistence, overwrite/append behavior, permissions, or what the call returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action, object, and destination are stated directly, and every word adds meaning.

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 writing tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits expected call semantics such as return value, success/failure behavior, and the meaning of room/wing, leaving an agent to guess at important usage details.

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 documents title, content, and tags, but room and wing are undocumented and the description does not clarify them. The general phrase 'finding or policy' adds only minimal semantics to the content parameter and says nothing about how the publish target or routing fields behave.

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 names a specific verb ('Publish'), a concrete object ('a sanitized, curated finding or policy'), and a precise destination ('cross-agent shared fleet memory'). This clearly differentiates it from local memory tools in the sibling set such as memory_remember or memory_recall.

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?

It implies the occasion ('sanitized, curated' material meant for shared use) but never explicitly says when to prefer this over memory_remember or memory_ingest_session, nor does it provide when-not-to-use exclusions. The shared-fleet scope is useful context, but the routing guidance is left to inference.

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