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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds value beyond them: it discloses that the action is state-changing, produces a public URL, is gated by authorization, and returns a signed link. It stops short of describing revocation or persistence details.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the 'Use this when...' trigger, followed by behavior and prerequisites. No filler, though the second sentence slightly overlaps with annotation information.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers trigger, mutating nature, authorization, and the returned signed link. Only revocation/lifecycle details are absent, which is minor.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: generation_id must be an owned generation sourced from list-generations, and expiration is optional. This ownership/provenance constraint is not present in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: creates a signed public share link for an existing generation/result. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling create-space-item-share-link because it operates on a generation rather than a space item.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('when the user wants to share an existing generated output') and points to list-generations as the source of the required generation_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous.

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