goclaw_agent_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Share') but doesn't explain what sharing entails—whether it grants permissions, sends notifications, affects existing shares, or has side effects like rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse at a glance.

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 complexity of a sharing operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, permissions, return values, or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter names and descriptions ('Agent ID', 'User ID to share with'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Share') and resource ('an agent') with a target ('with a user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'goclaw_agent_get' or 'goclaw_agent_update' by focusing on sharing, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other sharing-related tools like 'goclaw_mcp_server_grant_agent' or 'goclaw_skill_grant_user'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing agent or user), exclusions (e.g., not for teams or groups), or related tools like 'goclaw_team_create' for broader sharing. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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