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

The description states this is a state-changing action that creates and returns a signed public share link after authorization, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It does not mention edge cases like whether repeated calls create new links, but annotations plus the explicit creation wording provide adequate transparency.

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 two sentences, direct, and free of redundant filler. It packs the main purpose, side effects, and required context efficiently.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description clearly states that the return value is a signed public share link. It also mentions authorization, ownership restrictions, and optional expiration, which cover key operational context despite not detailing error cases or response format.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, and the tool description adds context that generation_id must be owned and come from list-generations. However, expiration semantics are only restated from the schema without additional clarification beyond the allowed values and default.

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 identifies the action: share an existing generated output, generation, or result via a public URL, and explicitly says it creates and returns a signed public share link. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by requiring an owned generation_id from list-generations.

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 explains when to use the tool (user wants to share a generation through a public URL) and mentions required ownership via generation_id from list-generations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context of generation_id makes the scope clear.

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