Unshare

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that omitting `reader` deletes the served copy, invalidates every invite, and requires re-inviting everyone by hand, while the one-person form is reversible. It also explains the preview-first behavior (`confirm: False = preview only`).

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 longer than average, but each sentence earns its place because the core distinction is high-stakes and the warning about the destructive branch is essential. The structure is front-loaded with the key distinction and uses bullets for readability. Slight redundancy exists, but it does not undermine 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?

Given the tool's destructive potential and absent annotations, the description is fully complete: it covers scope selection, irreversible consequences, preview behavior, recovery via `share`, and the exact language patterns that should trigger each form. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's responsibility.

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 schema already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the semantic weight of omitting `reader` and by framing `confirm` as the switch between preview and execution. It does not add much about token hashes, but the practical guidance about scope is genuinely valuable.

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 states a specific action ('STOP sharing') and immediately splits it into two clearly distinct scopes: with ONE person (`reader` set) or with everybody (`reader` omitted). This allows an agent to know exactly what the tool does and to distinguish it from the `share` sibling.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with real user phrasings ('stop sharing with Leo' vs. 'stop sharing / unshare / take my knowledge base down'), explains when `reader` is required, and warns against omitting it when a single person is named. It also references the `share` tool for reversal, providing clear alternatives.

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