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

The description contradicts the annotations. Annotations declare idempotentHint: true, but the description says 'rotate - issue a new address... this cannot be undone' and implies each call generates a new address, which is non-idempotent. This inconsistency is significant because it misleads the agent about the tool's side effects. Thus, score is 1 and annotation_contradiction is true.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the main purpose, and organized by the three operations. Each sentence contributes meaning, though the final sentence ('To simply stop sharing...') partly repeats earlier guidance and could be trimmed. Overall, it is efficient and readable, earning a 4.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors and the confirm_rotate requirement. It explains the three distinct actions and their side effects. However, it does not specify how parameters interact when combined (e.g., setting both public and rotate), nor what the tool returns. Given the schema's completeness and the description's coverage of key semantics, it is adequately complete, though not exhaustive.

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%, so all parameters already have detailed descriptions. The tool description adds some narrative context (e.g., 'Every copy already sent stops working' for rotate), but the schema already captures the core semantics (e.g., rotate description says 'Requires confirm_rotate'). The description adds marginal value beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool 'Change a share link' and enumerates three specific operations (public, rotate, expires_in_days). It is specific about the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_share_link or revoke_share_link, so the agent might not know when to choose this over those. That prevents a 5.

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 provides clear internal guidance on when to use public vs rotate, such as 'To simply stop sharing, set public to false' and 'Rotating punishes everyone you already sent it to.' It also warns about the irreversible nature of rotate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like create_share_link or revoke_share_link, leaving some ambiguity for tool selection.

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