share_space

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

Beyond the annotation (destructiveHint: false), the description reveals the tool's behavior: it returns a JSON error message explaining why sharing failed. It also explains the underlying reason (unavailable redemption route) and instructs not to attempt real sharing, adding significant behavioral context.

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 concise, with a single opening statement, a brief reason, and a warning, followed by parameter definitions. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the tool's main purpose.

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 role as a placeholder, the description adequately covers its behavior, return type, and parameter meanings. The output schema is not visible, but the description specifies the return format. No additional context is needed.

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?

Despite no description in the input schema, the description provides clear explanations for all three parameters: tag, email, and permission. These definitions added value beyond the schema's basic titles. The tool's placeholder nature does not detract from the parameter descriptions.

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 that the tool reports cross-tenant space sharing is unavailable. While the tool name suggests sharing, the description immediately clarifies its non-functional nature. It distinguishes itself implicitly from unaffected sharing tools like accept_shared_context.

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 warns against issuing unredeemable tokens ('Do not issue unredeemable tokens from MCP'), providing indirect guidance to avoid actual sharing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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