write_coach_share

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the consequence of opting in (numbers count toward the medians others see), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about reversibility, required permissions, or whose view is affected.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the clarifying consequence in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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 simple one-boolean toggle with annotations already covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose and effect adequately. It still omits when the setting should be changed and whether the change is reversible, which is the remaining gap for a destructive-flagged write.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does explain the meaning of the toggle (opting in makes the profile's numbers count toward shared medians). It never explicitly maps share=true/false to in/out, so the boolean polarity is left to inference.

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 action (opt in/out) on a specific resource (this profile's participation in the Coach comparison), so the agent knows exactly what the tool toggles. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as read_coach or admin_coach_config, leaving the boundary to be inferred from the name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the other coach-related tools (read_coach, admin_coach_config, write_coach_request/resolve), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage can be inferred from the setting semantics, but nothing in the text guides tool selection.

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