Share

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: grantees must be hashes, not names; only listed shardIds are exposed; and sharing does not copy the memory. This clarifies important side-effect semantics without contradicting any annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the most important caveats. There is minor redundancy with the schema's enum descriptions, but no filler or vague wording.

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?

All required parameters are effectively covered, and the no-copy/exhaustive-sharing caveat closes the most important semantic gap. With no output schema, return-value details are unspecified, but that is low risk for a sharing action.

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%, but the description adds value by interpreting the enums into actionable instructions and clarifying that shardIds is an exhaustive allowlist, not a loose filter. The optional expiryEpoch is left to the schema, which documents it adequately.

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?

States a specific action ('Grant ... access') against a specific resource ('specific memory shards'), making it clearly distinct from remember, forget, recall, and revoke_share. The mention of type and scope further anchors what the tool does.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: granting other agents access to memory shards. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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