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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses real behavioral consequences: an unshared page vanishes from the folder page, cannot be opened via the folder link, and retains its own separate link visibility. It does not mention permissions/auth requirements or reversibility explicitly, but the effect disclosure is strong.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the consequences. Each sentence adds a distinct fact (effect on folder page, effect on folder link, effect on own link, effect on public link), so there is little waste, though the last two clauses overlap thematically.

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 simple two-parameter boolean toggle with no output schema, the description covers the semantics of the state well but is incomplete where it matters most: the boolean polarity and the identity of proposal_id. No annotation or output schema compensates for that gap.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does not name either parameter. The boolean's polarity is left ambiguous: it explains the 'not shared through folder link' state but never maps that to internal=true/false, which is the single most important thing an agent needs. proposal_id is entirely unmentioned.

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 gives a concrete verb-concept ('Choose whether') and a specific resource: whether a page is shared through its folder link. It clearly describes the state being toggled, but never names itself as distinct from close siblings like set_visibility, set_visitor_internal, or set_folder, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the semantics rather than stated. There is a partial exclusion ('This does not make a public link private'), which hints at when the tool is NOT the right one, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the many set_* siblings.

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