share_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals only that this is a share (a mutation) into a thread; it says nothing about whether the share is visible to other participants, idempotency, permissions/auth requirements, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact two-entry Args block with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations the description leaves out key context: side effects, permission requirements, and how it relates to the many thread/message siblings. What remains is not enough for an agent to invoke it confidently in ambiguous cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partly does by defining both parameters: media_id as the Instagram media/post ID and thread_id as the target thread. Neither accepts format detail (e.g., numeric ID vs. shortcode) or an example, so the clarification is adequate but shallow.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Share an Instagram post into a thread', which is concrete enough for an agent to know the action. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'share_profile' (or 'open_share'/'transcribe_share'), so the agent has to infer the boundary between sharing a post versus a profile.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'into a thread' implies the context (an existing thread must be targeted), but nothing tells the agent how this differs from reply/send_file or from the sibling share_profile.

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