Share

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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'Only that one cell is exposed' and 'sharing re-wraps its key rather than copying the memory.' There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and is reasonably compact. Each clause adds relevant detail, though some restatement of schema fields such as scope values and recipient identifiers makes it slightly less tight than it could be.

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 mutating share operation with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers recipient identity requirements, scope choices, the single-cell scope, and the key-rewrap side effect. The schema covers expiry. It lacks explicit alternative routing and response/error behavior, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates schema facts such as the recipient being pinned out-of-band and the scope enum values, rather than adding new parameter-level meaning. It does not materially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 and resource: 'Grant one other agent access to a single memory cell, named by cellId.' It also clarifies recipient identification and scope values. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like saihm_revoke_share, but the grant-vs-revoke action is sufficiently clear.

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 clearly conveys the mechanics of sharing and how to identify the recipient, but it does not state when to use this tool over alternatives such as saihm_revoke_share, saihm_remember, or saihm_recall. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly framed.

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