share_session

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behavioral facts: the link is not read-only, anyone with it can pull full session content into their own agent, explicit user consent is required, and the link is revocable. This exceeds typical transparency expectations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds valuable context (non-read-only nature, consent requirement, revocation), with 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, behavioral implications, and revocation. It doesn't explicitly describe the return value, but 'Mint a public share link' implies the response contains the link. Minor gap, but overall 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 coverage is 100% for the single session_id parameter, with a clear description of where to get it (from list/search results). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming it's one of the user's sessions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Mint a public share link for ONE of the user's sessions' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the sharing action and contrasting with unshare_session.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'ONLY call this when the user has explicitly asked to share a session' and 'Never call it proactively.' It also references the revocation alternative unshare_session, giving clear context and exclusions.

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