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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent), so the description is free to add the higher-value facts: the required 'export' scope and the shape of the return (share URL plus ?embed=1 iframe URL). It does not discuss revocation, expiry enforcement, or collision on repeat calls, so it stops short of fully resolving the non-idempotent hint.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and its configurable surface, the second front-loads the return contract and the scope prerequisite. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return values (share URL and iframe URL), and it covers the auth prerequisite and all five parameters. It omits lifecycle details — whether links can be revoked, what happens on expiry, or how multiple links per design behave — which would round out a creation tool.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates those same fields (view/comment/edit, password, expiry, audience label). Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds the analytics framing for 'label' but no syntax or format detail beyond 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 and resource ('Create a share link for a design') and enumerates the configurable dimensions (mode, password, expiry, audience label). It is clearly a distinct resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, export_design, which it is related to via the shared 'export' scope.

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 verb and the scope note, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to an alternative tool (e.g. export_design) for related needs. An agent can infer the intent but gets no routing guidance.

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