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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false); the description adds material behavior the annotations cannot: immediate effect, folder-level inheritance overriding private links, separation of excluded items and legacy permissions, and stable-URL semantics. Return/pagination context is absent but not critical for a mutation here.

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?

Front-loads the one-of constraint and the three modes, then layers behavioral notes. Dense and mostly justified, though the trailing sentences on link semantics and 'reading records' are somewhat clipped and could be tightened.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers effects, inheritance, and cross-tool interactions well. It omits return/confirmation behavior, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 75% and the enum for visibility has no inline description in the schema, yet the description defines private/passcode/public precisely and clarifies passcode 'generated or retained when omitted'. It adds real meaning beyond the schema, though the exact passcode format is already in 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?

States a specific verb (Set) and resource (visibility) and immediately scopes it to 'exactly one proposal_id or folder_id'. It also names the sibling reset_default_link and its distinct role, letting an agent separate the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a clear directive ('Confirm external sharing with the user first') and routes URL-reset needs to reset_default_link. It lacks explicit when-not conditions, but the context for use is unambiguous.

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