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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful behavior ('private: true takes a public link back at once'), which signals the change is immediate. But the opening 'Says whether' invites an agent to treat this as a pure read, and the description never clarifies what calling with only 'doc' does in terms of side effects or return values.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the visibility framing is front-loaded. The shift from a reporting statement to a mutation caveat is slightly disjointed, but nothing is wasteful.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, most essentials are present: the private/public distinction, the override behavior, and the constraint on making existing docs public. Missing is what a call without 'private' actually returns or does, and whether attempting to make an existing doc public here errors or silently fails.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; baseline is 3. The description clarifies the effect of 'private: true' (immediate revocation of a public link), which is meaningful beyond the schema's terse 'Make it private now'. It does not explain what omitting 'private' means, leaving the default behavior implicit.

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 frames the tool as reporting 'whether a doc is private or public', but it also controls that state via 'private: true', so the read-vs-write nature is muddled rather than crisply stated. It does not distinguish this tool from the close sibling 'publish', which the description even alludes to when it says a new doc 'can be published public'. An agent can guess the purpose but not sharply separate it from siblings.

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?

There is real guidance: making an existing doc public is only possible through Share in the app, and new docs can be published public when the user asks. That tells the agent when the tool cannot perform a public transition. However there is no explicit comparison to the 'publish' sibling or guidance on when to call with no arguments versus with 'private' set.

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