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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description earns credit by explaining why: each call rebuilds the ZIP with one stored copy per project that is overwritten, so the agent understands what is destroyed. It also discloses that the link is private and short-lived, adding context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the link's key properties, with no filler. The first sentence is dense with a five-item manifest list, but each clause (privacy, lifetime, contents, destination tools) carries real selection value.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so fully: it describes the download link, the ZIP payload, and the manifest contents. Combined with one fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety, nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% for the single layer_set_id parameter, so the schema already does the documenting. The description's 'your own layers project' hints at an ownership/auth scope but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Prepare a private, short-lived download link for your own layers project') and pins down the exact artifact produced: a ZIP of original transparent PNGs plus a manifest of names, order, boxes and visibility. That output description cleanly separates it from get_layer_set (metadata read) and flatten_layer_set (destructive flatten), even though neither sibling is named.

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 phrase 'ready for Photoshop or Figma' implies the downstream use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no conditions, and no named alternative such as get_layer_set or flatten_layer_set. Usage is left to inference from the output format.

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