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

Annotations already declare this a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what specifically is toggled, but says nothing about permission requirements, behavior when no live link exists, or whether the setting persists across link regeneration.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and object arrive immediately. It is efficient but so terse that the sizing borders on under-specification rather than optimal.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves key gaps: whether a share link must already exist, what the response confirms, and how the toggle interacts with sibling share-link tools. An agent could call it, but with real uncertainty about preconditions.

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 carries the full burden, but it only vaguely gestures at business_id ('a business's') and never explains that enabled=true turns the section on and false turns it off. With two undocumented required parameters, more compensation was needed.

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 gives a specific verb pair (turn on/off) and a specific target (the 'review the details' section of a business's live status link), so an agent knows exactly what state is being changed. It does not distinguish itself from share-link siblings like create_share_link or show_share_link, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 only implied: the agent must infer that this applies to an existing share link and that a link must exist first. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus revoke_share_link or create_share_link, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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