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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: rotate stops the old link from opening, visibility=members requires proving email, and making or widening a link publishes the workbook. It also adds an explicit confirmation warning before publishing. These details align with and enrich the destructive/open-world annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, defining the resource first and then walking through the action modes and visibility semantics. Every clause contributes useful information, and the warning about publishing is clearly placed at the end.

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 destructive share-management tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral details: action modes, visibility semantics, old-link invalidation, publishing side effects, and confirmation requirements. The remaining metadata parameters are fully covered by the schema and do not require description-level treatment.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description nonetheless adds useful meaning beyond the schema, especially for action and visibility: show returns sharing status and link, create makes one, rotate invalidates the old link, and visibility distinguishes link vs. members access.

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 states a specific resource (a workbook's share link) and clearly explains the link's meaning and the supported actions: show, create, and rotate. It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from nearby sibling tools such as link_workbook, so it falls short of the highest score.

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?

The description gives clear action-level guidance: show is the default, create makes a link, and rotate is specifically for a link that reached someone it should not have. It also explains visibility choices and the need to confirm publishing actions with the user. It does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus sibling tools like link_workbook or unlink_workbook.

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