OpenEvidence Article Share Access

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: it specifies HTTP method (PATCH), explains the effect of true/false on access levels (ANYONE_WITH_LINK vs CREATOR_ONLY), notes prerequisites (ownership, relay connection), and mentions the return of a shareable URL and the security warning.

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 two clear sentences plus a warning, all front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema, the description states the return value (shareable URL). It covers prerequisites, side effects, and security implications, making it complete for a mutation tool.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the access levels corresponding to boolean values and that article_id accepts both UUID and full URL. This enhances the agent's understanding.

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 starts with 'Set a conversation's share visibility', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is for sharing access, while tools like oe_article_get are for retrieving content.

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 states when to use (to change public/private status), and provides conditions: you must own the conversation and have the relay extension connected. Also warns against publishing PHI, guiding appropriate use.

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