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

The description labels the action as 'state-changing' and 'creates', which accurately reflects write behavior. It also mentions 'after authorization' and the returned public link. The annotations already cover readOnly and destructive hints, and the description adds useful context about authorization and output without contradiction.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that pack purpose, usage, and behavioral details without unnecessary verbosity. It avoids redundant phrasing and gets to the point 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?

The description provides all essential context: the action, the target resource, the output (signed public share link), and necessary authorization. It also clarifies the optional expiration parameter and the owned-access requirement, making the tool's behavior fully understandable for an agent.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all three parameters (item_id, space_id, expires_in_minutes) with clear explanations. The tool description reiterates them but does not add substantial new meaning beyond clarifying that expiration is optional, which is already implied by the required parameter list. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states the action: it creates and returns a signed public share link for a Space item. It specifies the resource (Space page/document, folder, or external link) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-generation-share-link by focusing on space items.

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?

The description provides a clear trigger ('when the user wants to share...') and mentions prerequisites ('requires owned Space access'). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the condition is specific enough to guide tool selection.

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