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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint, openWorldHint and non-idempotency. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the 2 GiB cap and, importantly, that a url is a public page anyone with the link can use with no account, plus that download links survive the Mac stopping. It omits permission requirements and link revocation behavior.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense semicolon-chained run-on that interleaves return values (url, upload_command, download_url) with parameter behavior, making it harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 compensates by explaining the return fields for both directions (url/upload_command, url/download_url) and the key caveats (size cap, public access, persistence). This is nearly complete, missing only permission and revocation details.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates direction and extract effects but adds little beyond that; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 ("Makes a link for one file") and adds a concrete scope limit (up to 2 GiB). It cleanly explains the two directions, though it never names a sibling such as get_mac_file_link to distinguish creating a link from retrieving one.

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 upload/download explanations imply which mode fits a given need, and the persistence note ("working after the Mac stops") hints at long-running retrieval. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no pointer to alternatives like get_mac_file_link or write_mac_file.

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