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

The description explicitly discloses side effects ('previous one stops working'), output ('Returns a new share URL'), and a limitation ('secret code is shown only in the serve console, never here'). This goes beyond the basic annotations and sets accurate expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key side effect and default behavior. No redundant or extraneous wording is present.

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?

All necessary operational details are included: required plan, default TTL, behavior of the old URL, and where the secret code appears. For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, this is complete.

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 schema already covers both parameters, including the optional ttl default. The description mostly restates the schema, so it adds little semantic value beyond what is already provided.

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 states a specific action ('Rotate the capability token and secret code') and resource ('for a link'), and clarifies it returns a new share URL. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like protect_link, revoke_link, and unprotect_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?

It provides important usage context: a Pro plan is required, ttl defaults to 24 hours, and the previous URL stops working. It does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools, but the behavior is clear enough to indicate when renewal/rotation is intended.

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