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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the link is 'short-lived' and that the Change Request must be 'visible', both genuine behavioral traits, but it says nothing about permissions, side effects of link creation, or how the link is delivered.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the first line duplicates the title verbatim, the raw POST endpoint line adds little for an MCP caller, and the trailing sentence about ChangeRequests plus the injection-defense note are generic boilerplate. Moderate redundancy keeps this at an adequate 3.

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 2-param, no-output-schema tool, the description could have stated what the call returns (a link/URL) and when the link expires, but it does not. It covers the space-selection prerequisite but leaves the return value and lifetime unspecified.

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 50%: targetSpaceId is already documented in the schema with the same multi-space guidance the description repeats, while changeRequestId is undocumented in both. With the description largely echoing schema text rather than explaining the required identifier, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (and title) states a specific verb+resource: create a short-lived preview link for a visible Change Request. This is distinct from siblings like change_requests_get or change_request_review. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a concrete usage step for multi-space accounts (call auth_verify, ask the user which space, pass targetSpaceId), which is real guidance. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not framing relative to alternatives and no prerequisites for the Change Request itself beyond the word 'visible'.

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