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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context by framing the operation as an upsert ('creates or updates'), marking the link as time-bounded, constraining the target to tenant-owned completed transcripts, and stating the external-disclosure precondition. It does not mention rate limits, what happens to a prior link, or how external exposure can be withdrawn.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and the object, then ends with the prerequisite. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a destructive, open-world, security-sensitive write tool, the description leaves material gaps: what permission means, whether an existing link is replaced or a second link is created, and how the granted access is later revoked.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It hints at expiresInHours ('time-bounded') and confirms the disclosure flag, but says nothing about the view-vs-download permission enum or the idempotencyKey — two parameters an agent must reason about to call this safely, and 'one transcript' only indirectly maps to transcriptionId.

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 ('creates or updates a time-bounded public link'), the object ('one tenant-owned completed transcript'), and the gating condition ('explicit external-disclosure confirmation'). The scope is narrow enough that an agent can distinguish it from revoke_share_link or export_transcript without reading either schema.

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 phrase 'after explicit external-disclosure confirmation' implies a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. revoke_share_link for the inverse). Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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