saihm_share

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Create a sharing contract' but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing shares), idempotency, permission requirements, or reversibility. The different contract types are listed but not explained in terms of behavior or lifecycle.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and resource. It is concise, but its brevity sacrifices useful details. Every word earns its place, but the description could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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?

Given 5 parameters, 2 enums, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too incomplete. It does not explain return values (e.g., contract ID), constraints (e.g., ownership requirements), or the semantics of contract types. The agent cannot confidently construct a valid invocation without external knowledge.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the contract types but not the other parameters (granteeIdHashesHex, shardIds, scope, expiryEpoch). It fails to clarify how to obtain hex-encoded grantee hashes or the implications of scope values.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'sharing contract' over shards, and lists the contract types (TEMPORARY/PERMANENT/SYNDICATE). It distinguishes from siblings like sai hm_revoke_share (revoke) as the creation action. However, it could be more explicit that it creates a contract for specific grantees and shards with a scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like saihm_revoke_share or saihm_forget. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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