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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the link becomes publicly accessible and the protection is removed. It also clarifies what each alternative does, increasing transparency beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Two sentences deliver the primary action, the resulting state, and the alternative tools without redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with destructiveHint=true, the description fully explains the effect and provides decision context via sibling references. No output schema is present, but for this simple action the description is sufficient.

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 documents the single required parameter 'label' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level details, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully covers the parameter semantics.

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 identifies the action ('Clear protection'), the resource ('an owned link'), and the resulting state ('public access so anyone with the URL can view it'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming revoke_link and renew_link as alternatives.

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 gives direct usage guidance: use this tool to make a link public, use revoke_link to keep it protected but invalidate credentials, and use renew_link to rotate credentials. This explicitly helps an agent choose among closely related sibling tools.

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