saihm_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'create a sharing contract' without disclosing side effects, required permissions, whether it overwrites existing contracts, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 with 12 words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, constraints (e.g., expiry only for 'temporary' type), or prerequisites. However, the schema covers parameter details, and the description gives sufficient context for basic use.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description mentions contract types matching the enum but does not explain the distinction between temporary, permanent, and syndicate, nor the meaning of access scopes. It adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 action (create), the resource (sharing contract), and specifies the contract types (TEMPORARY/PERMANENT/SYNDICATE). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like saihm_revoke_share and saihm_forget.

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 implies the tool is used to share shards with grantees but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., saihm_revoke_share) or how to choose between contract types and scopes. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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