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

Beyond annotations (all false), the description discloses plan requirement, TTL default, the fact that the viewer secret is never returned, and the side effect that re-protecting invalidates prior share URLs. This is exactly the kind of context agents need and it exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then output behavior, then caveats and alternatives. Each sentence adds distinct information without redundancy.

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 and minimal annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers return value (share URL), secret handling, TTL default, replacement behavior, and sibling tool routing. No critical call-time fact 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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the ttl default and adds the 'owned link' context for label, but does not add significant new syntactic or semantic details beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Enable') and resource ('capability token and readable secret protection on an owned link'), and clearly differentiates from siblings by naming renew_link and revoke_link as alternatives. It also states the Pro plan requirement and what the output share URL does, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 states the condition for use (protecting an owned link), and explicitly routes to alternatives: 'To rotate credentials instead, use renew_link; to invalidate them without minting new ones, use revoke_link.' It also warns about replacing existing protection, which helps agents decide whether to call this or a safer alternative.

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