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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the link is publicly viewable by anyone with the URL, it uses the account's existing preview workspace, availability is resolved lazily when the link opens, and no publishing/editing occurs. Gaps remain on what the call actually returns (the link? an existing link on 'recover'?) and whether access can be revoked later.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by ID sourcing, locale default, and safety guardrails. Every sentence carries usable information; only the 'page availability is checked when the link opens' sentence is slightly tangential to invocation.

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 implies but never states what is returned (the preview URL or an existing one on 'recover'). Otherwise it covers prerequisites, public-visibility implications, idempotent recovery, and the no-publish guardrail well enough to call it correctly.

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 50% (route and locale documented; siteId and projectId undocumented). The description usefully compensates by naming list_projects and list_sites as the source of the two bare UUIDs, and reinforces the locale-omission default, but adds no format or constraint detail for those IDs.

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+resource+scope: 'Create or recover a public live preview link to a site page without publishing.' The 'without publishing' clause cleanly separates it from publish_site and revoke_shared_preview in the sibling list.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance ('Use projectId from list_projects and siteId from list_sites') and a conditional trigger ('Share only when requested'). It also names a non-usage branch (missing preview workspace -> report, don't edit/publish), but never explicitly names publish_site as the alternative when actual publishing is wanted.

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