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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent. The description adds real context beyond them: it states the return value ("Returns the link"), that link-level access is read-only and embeddable, and warns that a link exposes the page and its data to anyone holding it. It does not discuss reversibility after switching back, a minor gap.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the level definitions first, then usage, then the safety caveat. It is moderately dense and repeats the schema's enum text somewhat, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs, and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return value ("Returns the link"). For a two-parameter, low-complexity tool it covers purpose, triggers, the destructive/exposure implications, and the return, leaving only fine details like post-change reversibility unstated.

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 the level enum is fully documented in the schema itself. The description largely restates those same level definitions, adding only "the default" for collection, so it neither compensates for a gap nor adds much beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Changes who can open a page") and enumerates the three visibility levels with their exact meanings. This purpose (visibility/permission sharing) is clearly distinct from siblings like get_view, update_view, and open_page, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use ("when the user asks you to share a page or to give them a link to send") and a when-not guard ("Only when the user asked"). It does not name an alternative sibling tool, but the positive and negative triggers are unambiguous.

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