share_memory_record

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutation tool. It adds one useful behavioral fact (promotion is never automatic), but does not say what sharing means in practice: the resulting visibility scope, whether the change is reversible, required permissions, or side effects for other sessions. For an irreversible-looking visibility change, this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the anti-pattern (automatic promotion) second; nothing is redundant. It is arguably over-compressed given how much behavior remains unstated, but structurally it is clean and wastes no words.

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?

This is a mutating visibility-change tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, so the description must supply far more than it does. It omits what happens to the record after sharing, how errors surface, and what session_id does, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently beyond the happy path.

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 both parameters depend on the description, which mentions neither record_id nor session_id. The word "record" faintly implies record_id identifies the target, but the meaning of the optional session_id (default "") and the expected ID format are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names an action ("promote") and an object ("a visible private record"), so an agent can tell this changes a record's visibility rather than reading or listing it. However, "promote" and "visible private record" are unexplained internal vocabulary, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like record_decision or query_memory beyond the word "share". The core intent is inferable but not crisply stated.

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?

"Explicitly" and "no automatic promotion of agent claims" imply the agent should invoke this only when a record genuinely needs to be shared rather than assuming claims become visible on their own. That is real when-to-use signaling, but no alternative tool or condition for choosing among siblings is named, and there is no guidance on when to omit sharing.

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