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

Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world create. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — the client needs no Shager account, and connected accounts surface in list_channels — but omits the traits that matter for a link-minting tool: expiry, revocability, whether the link is single-use, and what the response contains. Instead it spends its length on downstream publishing capabilities.

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?

Roughly 600 words, of which well over 80% is a per-platform feature brochure (TikTok cover moments, Instagram comment links, Pinterest carousels) that does not help an agent decide to call this tool or fill in its three parameters. The single useful sentence about the link's mechanics is buried at the very front and never developed.

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 create tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description should say what is returned (a URL?) and how the link behaves (expiry, revocation). It says none of that, while over-delivering on capability detail an agent does not need at call time.

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 label, workspace_id and idempotency_key are already fully documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing about any of the three parameters, so the 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 opening sentence describes the artifact ("A link to send the account owner... They open it, sign in and pick their accounts") rather than stating the action, but the purpose is inferable. It never distinguishes this from the similar sibling get_claim_link or from invite_member, leaving ambiguity about which link-generating tool to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the incidental mention of list_channels, and no exclusions. The closest thing to routing is the implicit notion that you use it to let a client connect their own accounts, which an agent must infer.

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