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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds real context on top: anyone with the link sees dinners and recipe contents (the exposure that justifies the destructive hint), and a linked Chop It account is required. It does not explain repeat-call behavior or revocation, so idempotency remains implicit.

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?

Three short sentences led by the action, no restatement of the title. The trailing "so it suits a request to share" is slightly redundant with the preceding exposure statement but still functions as routing guidance.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the account prerequisite and public-visibility consequence are covered. The main gap is what happens on repeated calls or how a link is revoked, which matters for a destructive, idempotent-flagged mutation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: savedWeekId is a Saved Week ID and draft IDs are explicitly invalid inputs. That is meaningful filtering guidance beyond the schema's bare uuid type.

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 ("Creates a public link to ... Saved Weeks") plus the effect (others can preview and import a copy). It is clearly distinguishable from preview_shared_week and import_shared_week, which consume rather than create a 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?

Says this "suits a request to share" and warns that Draft IDs are private and never share codes, which tells the agent when the call is valid. It does not name the sibling tools (preview_shared_week, import_shared_week, delete_saved_week for revocation) as explicit alternatives.

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