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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds real context beyond them: the link is public, recipients need no account, and calling again mutates the existing link in place rather than minting a second one. It does not mention rate limits, revocation, or what happens to previously distributed URLs when permissions change.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the routing rule. Every clause carries information the agent needs to pick and place the call correctly.

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 single-purpose public-link mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and update-in-place behavior adequately. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance (permission and expiry choices) that the caller must infer from the schema alone.

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 only 67% (designId has no schema description) and the description mentions no parameters at all — not the view/edit/clone permission levels, not the expiration window. With coverage below the 80% baseline, the description was expected to compensate for the required-parameter gap and does not.

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 (or update) the public link for a cloud design') and anchors it to a known artifact ('the same link the editor's Share dialog makes'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling open_in_editor, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('for a person who does NOT own the design or sit on its team') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('for the owner, editorUrl / open_in_editor is the link'). It also discloses the one-link-per-design constraint, removing ambiguity about whether repeated calls create duplicates.

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