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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that access is view-only, that the recipient does not need a Mythex account, and that links are revocable. These are meaningful behavioral details for an open-world mutation tool, though it does not mention creation permissions or expiration behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key distinction from publishing. Every clause adds useful information with no repetition.

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 simple two-parameter, non-destructive sharing tool, the description covers the important concepts: external access, view-only permission, live preview target, and revocability. It could optionally say that a URL is returned, but the essential behavior is clear.

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%, and both parameters are documented there, including the purpose of name and the project_id/session fallback. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (create a share link) and precisely scopes it as a view-only link to the live preview for someone without an account. It also distinguishes the action from publishing, so an agent can separate it from publish_app and publish_readiness.

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 explicitly says when this is appropriate (showing work in progress to an external viewer) and when it is not (not a publish). It does not name the sibling alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for correct tool selection.

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