share_plan

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description usefully discloses the output format (a page-opening link or an sfplan: line), but says nothing about whether the link encodes notes/layout/world state, whether it is stable or signed, or what the tool returns.

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?

It is a single tight sentence fragment with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than concise: 'the page' has no referent and no front-loaded statement of what the tool returns.

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?

With seven parameters, no output schema, and a link-generation behavior whose content varies by flags, the description should explain what the emitted link/line actually encodes. It gives only the shape of the output, leaving the per-flag effects and return value entirely to inference.

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 71%, and 'save' and 'world' are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds zero parameter meaning — nothing about how include_world, layout, notes, or as_of change the generated link, which is exactly the context a caller needs to pick flags.

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 conveys that the tool produces a shareable representation of a saved plan in two forms — a link that opens a copy on the page, or an 'sfplan:' line. It never states a verb or that it generates/returns these artifacts, and it doesn't distinguish itself from the obvious counterpart import_plan, which is what consumes such links.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of siblings like import_plan, plans, plan_layout, or plan_from_factory. The reader must infer from the name alone that this is the export side of a share/import pair.

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