Set recipe sharing permission

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context about requiring disclosure to be shown and not inferring permission, though it does not specify the effect of enabled true/false or the role of consent_version.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The key prerequisite is front-loaded, and the prohibition follows immediately.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too sparse. It covers the disclosure prerequisite but omits what the sharing change actually controls, how enabled is interpreted, and what happens when consent_version is supplied.

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 description coverage is 0% for two required parameters. The description mentions showing a disclosure and consent conceptually, but it does not explain the 'enabled' boolean or the 'consent_version' enum value, so parameter meaning remains largely undocumented.

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 says 'Change sharing' and references get_recipe_sharing, which implies the tool mutates recipe sharing settings. However, it never explicitly names 'recipe sharing permission' in the description text, so the purpose is only inferable from the title and sibling reference.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite: only change sharing after showing the disclosure returned by get_recipe_sharing. It also gives a clear prohibition: never infer permission from a recipe request. This directly tells the agent when and when not to use the tool.

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