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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly structured. The description adds real context beyond that: 'link' makes the page and its data readable by anyone, is read-only, and is embeddable, and it states the tool returns the link. It does not discuss revocation or what happens to existing links.

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?

Front-loads the core behavior and the level meanings, then the usage condition, then the caution — a sensible order. It is somewhat long because the enum values are restated from the schema, but no sentence is pure 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?

For a 2-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage constraint, side effects, and the return value ('Returns the link'). The only gap is what happens on re-share or revocation and whether the returned link format is described, which is minor.

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 enum for 'level' is fully documented in the schema, including the semantics of each value. The description largely mirrors that enum text, so it adds little beyond the schema; baseline 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('changes who can open a page') and enumerates the three levels it can set, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like update_view or open_page. The effect on the page's audience is stated concretely rather than restated from the title.

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 explicit when-to-use ('when the user asks you to share a page or to give them a link to send') and an explicit guardrail ('Only when the user asked'), which is a when-not condition. Nothing about selection has to be inferred.

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