Share machine

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: information loss, the shared value being the maximum over participants, the non-inverse relationship with release, the move of the resource from machineAssignments to sharedAssignments, and the single undo step. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 dense but front-loaded, leading with the core operation before the caveats. Every sentence carries useful information, though it is longer than strictly necessary and could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It fully covers side effects, constraints, reversibility, and post-condition state changes, leaving an agent well equipped to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the constraint that each task must already carry the resource and that the type is limited to machine or machine_role, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 verb and resource ('Lets several tasks share one machine or machine role') and immediately distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like rillsoft_machine_sharing_release. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 clear context for use ('several tasks share one machine') and constraints such as 'each of them has to carry it on its own today' and 'all tasks must belong to the same project.' It also warns that rillsoft_machine_sharing_release is not the inverse, which helps prevent misuse. It lacks an explicit when-not or alternative tool recommendation beyond that contrast.

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