share_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only commits the base lacks are sent and that full=True handles a missing base commit, but it omits side effects (does it push to a remote, mutate room state?), whether it's reversible, and any permission requirements for the room.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the incremental-vs-full nuance and the usage trigger, with no filler. Every sentence earns its place for a tool of this complexity.

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 output schema covers return values and the description handles purpose and the key flags, but with five undocumented parameters and no annotations, an agent still lacks room_id, branch, and repo_path semantics to invoke it confidently. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for two tricky params, clarifying base ('commits base lacks', default main) and full (recover from a missing base commit), but leaves branch, room_id, and repo_path ('default .') entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (Share) and resource (a git branch) plus the scope (teammates on other machines, through the room), which is enough for an agent to grasp the operation immediately. No sibling tool overlaps with branch sharing, so the description doesn't need to differentiate, but it also doesn't explicitly map itself against the room-oriented siblings.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use trigger: 'Use it before asking someone on another machine to review a commit they can't git show.' It also names a conditional path ('set full=True when a teammate reports a missing base commit'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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