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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations — that activation has side effects and that shares expire (tying to `ttl_seconds`) — but it omits permission requirements and the consequences of activation/revocation.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding, but the compression comes at the cost of clarity — 'Issue/revoke expiring shares' is terse to the point of ambiguity about what the operation actually does.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and very low schema coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain how `activation_id`, `share_link`, `revoke_share_links`, or `wait_seconds` relate to the activation/share workflow, leaving the agent to infer the call shape entirely from bare schema names.

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?

With 9 parameters and only 11% schema description coverage (only `restart` is documented), the description must carry the load, but it barely clarifies params. 'Named page links' hints at `paths` and 'expiring shares' hints at `ttl_seconds`, yet `build_id` vs `activation_id`, `workspace`, `share_link`, `wait_seconds`, and `revoke_share_links` are left unexplained.

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 names specific actions (activate previews, return page links, issue/revoke shares), but bundles three loosely related operations into one tool, so it's unclear what the primary verb/resource is — especially against the name `preview_get`, which suggests a read while the description describes activation. It doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling `preview_screenshot`.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. The agent cannot tell from the description when to choose `preview_get` over `preview_screenshot`, `builds_open`, or `glowup_build_open`.

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