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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this is a state-changing public-link action, that it returns a signed public share link, and that authorization/owned Space access is required. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits details such as whether existing links are reused or revoked.

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 efficient sentences, front-loading the usage trigger before the behavioral details. Every sentence adds useful information without padding.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the trigger, the state-changing nature, authorization requirements, and the returned signed link. Minor remaining gaps, such as exact response shape or behavior when links already exist, keep it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents space_id, item_id, and expires_in_minutes in detail. The description repeats the required parameters and adds the idea of owned Space access, but adds little parameter-level semantics beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: creating a public share link for Space pages/documents, folders, or external links. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similar sibling create-generation-share-link.

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 gives a clear triggering condition: "Use this when the user wants to share a Space page/document, folder, or external link with a public URL." It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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