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

Annotations only say readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the description carries a heavy burden and it delivers extensively: it states nothing is deleted, version history and collected records remain untouched, prior visibility is restored, and the page may not become live until set_visibility is called. It also covers subdomain address behavior and the lapsed-plan refusal case, going far beyond the annotations.

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?

All sentences carry useful information, and the main use case is front-loaded, but the content is one dense wall of text with many nested clauses and edge cases. It could be tightened or structured into separate points without losing meaning.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers the necessary behavior, follow-up requirements, address output semantics, and refusal condition. The agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret what it returns.

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 the schema already documents site_id and workspace_id, meaning the description does not need to compensate. It mentions output fields like landing_url and share_url, but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 use case: a site lost its link and the user wants it back, then clearly states the tool creates a fresh share link when none exists. It distinguishes this recovery operation from everyday publishing by noting every site gets a link when published and that an active link is kept and not replaced.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('a site lost its link and the user wants it back') and when it will not act ('a site that already has an active link keeps it and gets no second one'). It also names a required follow-up call, set_visibility, for restricted pages, and describes the one refusal case. It does not contrast with sibling tools like set_link_status, but the usage context is clear.

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