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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description genuinely adds behavior beyond them: creating a link silently replaces any live one and the old link stops working. That consequence is the single most important thing an agent needs before calling this.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, with no filler. Some wording is UI-level ("Copy button", "Confirm button") that an agent cannot act on directly, which is minor waste but not harmful.

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?

The mutation and its destructive side effect are well covered, which is the hardest part. However, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, leaving the purpose enum and business_id unexplained makes the definition only partly complete for an agent building a correct call.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It only gestures at review_enabled ("status links ... lets the viewer review the registration details") and never explains the purpose enum values status_view vs data_intake or what business_id scopes.

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?

"Make a share link" names a specific verb and resource, and the note about replacing a live link pins down the operation further. It does not name the closely related siblings (show_share_link, list_share_links, revoke_share_link, set_share_review), so differentiation comes only from the verb itself.

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?

Implicit guidance exists: this is the creation path, and the replacement warning implies the agent should consider whether a live link already exists. No explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-an-alternative statement (e.g. set_share_review vs review_enabled) is given.

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