brain_share

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: export, create link, return URL and import command. It mentions optional filtering and visibility. However, it does not state whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or has side effects (e.g., does it modify the original brain? Does it create a new share each time?). No mention of permissions or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences long plus an example, all front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the main operation, the second covers optional filtering and visibility, the third describes the return value. The example demonstrates usage. No wasted 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality (export, share link, return value, filtering, visibility). It explains the return value (share URL and import command), which is important since there is no output schema. However, it does not mention the dry_run or max_lessons parameters, which are part of the schema. The example helps but does not fully compensate for these omissions. Still, it is fairly complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example (brain_share(instance_id="...", title="My Auth Patterns", topic_filter=["auth"])) but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already gives for each parameter. It does not explain dry_run or max_lessons in the description text. The schema already covers the parameter semantics adequately.

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 tool's action: 'Export a Brain snapshot and create a publicly shareable link'. It specifies the resource (Brain snapshot), the verb (export/create), and the outcome (shareable link). This distinguishes it from siblings like brain_import (import) or brain_share_list (list shares), though it does not explicitly contrast them. The purpose is unmistakable and specific.

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 when to use the tool (to share a brain snapshot), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like brain_share_list or brain_unshare. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer basic usage, but explicit guidance is missing.

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