Share this session

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context that the output is published and consumed by teammates, plus a secrets-hygiene warning, but it omits the non-idempotent consequence (each call creates a new share) and the visibility/permission implications that openWorldHint implies.

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 short sentences, zero preamble, and the single most consequential instruction (author the summary yourself) is front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 14-parameter publishing tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about what comes back (a session id, a link to paste, a confirmation) or what happens to the transcript once shared, which the agent needs to close the loop. The anthropomorphic framing and secrets warning carry it to adequate, but not complete.

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% across 14 parameters, so the schema already documents goal/done/next/include/continues/pr_url defaults and the enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond gesturing at "the summary" as a whole; with the schema doing all the work, baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Share the session you are in right now with the team" gives a specific verb (share), an unambiguous resource (the current session, not an arbitrary id), and the audience. It implicitly separates itself from get_session/list_sessions reads, but it never names a sibling (e.g. share_template, update_session) the way it could.

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?

The description tells the agent how to approach the call (author the summary yourself, since it is read first) and gives one hard constraint (never include secrets). It says nothing about when this is the right tool versus share_template, update_session, or comment_on_session, so the alternative selection 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.