share_profile

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 says the profile is posted into a thread but discloses nothing about side effects (notifications to participants), required membership/permissions on the target thread, or failure conditions.

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?

Two-to-three short lines with the action front-loaded; the args block is efficient and wastes no words. Slightly formulaic, but every sentence earns its place.

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, and both inputs are covered. What remains missing for a cross-user share action is context about permissions, thread membership requirements, and any side effects.

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 does: both parameters are annotated inline ('ID of the user profile to share', 'Thread to share it into'). This goes meaningfully beyond the bare schema names, though thread_id's note is close to a restatement.

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 verb ('Share') and resource ('a user's Instagram profile') plus the destination ('into a thread'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like share_media or open_share. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative, so the profile-vs-media distinction is left implicit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as share_media or open_share. The agent must infer the trigger condition from the verb alone.

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