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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: idempotency ('Claiming twice is harmless — it reports the same outcome rather than granting anything twice'). This goes beyond what annotations provide (none exist). It also clarifies the effect ('becomes readable') without overpromising. It doesn't mention permissions or side effects beyond the claim, but the idempotency note is valuable.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, the input flexibility is stated, and the idempotency note is a valuable addition. Every sentence 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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, what input to pass, and the idempotency guarantee. It doesn't describe the return value, but with no output schema and a simple claim action, that's a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context by explaining the link parameter can be a full URL or bare token, which is helpful. The token parameter is already well-described in the schema as an override. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Accept'), a specific resource ('agentleFS share link'), and the effect ('the folder or document it names becomes readable'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_org_share_link and revoke_org_share by focusing on claiming an existing link. The mention of 'given to you' clarifies the intended use case.

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 clearly says when to use this tool: when a share link has been given to you. It also provides practical guidance on input format ('Pass the whole URL or just its token'). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling list makes the distinction fairly clear.

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