note_share_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the grant is opaque and redeemable via a specific sibling, which is useful context. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication, persistence, expiry, or what the caller receives, leaving gaps for a state-changing operation.

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 no filler. It is concise and focused, though the brevity sacrifices paramameter guidance.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks parameter semantics, return behavior, and side-effect information.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'token' or 'id' parameters. The agent is left to guess which parameter identifies the note and which serves as an authorization or grant token.

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 uses a specific verb ('Prepare') and resource ('opaque share grant') and clearly scopes it to 'one of your own notes.' It also names the redemption tool, which differentiates it from sibling note_share_redeem and other note tools.

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 clearly implies this tool is for creating a share grant, while note_share_redeem is for redeeming one. It also gives a usage restriction ('one of your own notes'). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to other sharing-related siblings.

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