marrow_share_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention side effects, return format, permissions, reversibility, or other consequences of sharing a memory.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to functional clarity.

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 three-parameter tool with complete schema descriptions, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of output schema and behavioral context means the agent still lacks information about return values and side effects, which a fuller description could provide.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters with clear descriptions (id, actor, agentIds), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the phrase 'specific agents,' so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('share'), a clear resource ('a memory'), and a precise scope ('with specific agents'), which distinguishes it from sibling memory operations like get, update, or delete. It immediately conveys what the tool does.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the description says sharing with specific agents, which hints at when this tool applies, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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