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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the response carries a publicLink, publishing refreshes an existing configuration, and FULL task access plus tasks:write scope are required. What is not disclosed is the blast radius of a reconfigure (whether toggling fields silently hides content from already-issued links) or whether revoking invalidates prior URLs.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the true/false semantics, then the toggle meaning, then the access requirement. Nothing repeated and nothing 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?

Covers the essentials for a 16-parameter mutation with no output schema: action, mode semantics, auth requirement, and the notable return field. Gaps are around edge behavior (reconfiguring an existing share, interaction between custom-field flags) rather than core invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description explains the shared flag's two modes and frames the remaining booleans as 'which slices of the task are visible to a public viewer', but it does not clarify the interaction between shareCustomFields and sharedCustomFieldIdentifiers or the expiresAt behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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 set ('Enable, disable, or reconfigure') against a specific resource ('public sharing for a task'), so the mutation role is unmistakable. It doesn't name or contrast with the read-side sibling pm_get_task_sharing, leaving that routing to inference.

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 clear conditions for the two modes ('shared: true' to publish or refresh, 'shared: false' to revoke) plus prerequisites ('Requires FULL access to the task', 'API-key scope: tasks:write'). No explicit when-not guidance or reference to pm_get_task_sharing as the read alternative.

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