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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (which already indicate a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent operation). It discloses the side effect on landing page and campaign links, plan restrictions, the requirement for edit access, and the fact that rejected requests leave the stored expiry unchanged. This is rich behavioral disclosure that the annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the use case and then delivers the necessary details in a logical order: action, parameters, plan restrictions, permissions, and failure behavior. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 write operation with multiple constraints, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use it, how to set and clear, plan limitations, permission requirements, effects on related resources, and error behavior. Given there is no output schema, it still gives the agent enough to know what to expect on failure.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains the exact ISO 8601 format with an example, clarifies that null removes the expiry, and elaborates on workspace_id usage (when required, when to omit). This goes beyond the schema's terse parameter descriptions, helping the agent use the parameters correctly.

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 ('stop working after a date, or to keep it up indefinitely') and states the exact action ('Sets or clears an expiry on a site's share link'). It names the resource (site's share link) and the verb clearly, and it is distinct from sibling tools like set_link_status or create_share_link.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user wants the link to stop working after a date, or to keep it up indefinitely.' It also provides plan-specific guidance (Pro only for setting, all plans for clearing) and permission requirements. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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