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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false; the description goes beyond them by disclosing that rotate makes a new link and 'stops the old from opening,' and that making or widening a link publishes the workbook and warrants user confirmation. It does not cover permission/auth requirements for the caller or what happens when create is called on an already-shared workbook, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded: the share-link concept comes first, then the actions, then visibility, then the safety caveat. It is one dense paragraph with em-dash clauses, but no sentence is filler; the only criticism is that the clause density makes it slightly heavy to scan.

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 usefully states what 'show' returns ('says whether it is shared and gives the link') and warns about the publishing side effect of create/visibility changes. For a 5-parameter tool with two enum parameters, this is close to complete; only edge-case behavior (calling create when already shared, error conditions) is unaddressed.

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 the baseline is 3, but the prose adds real meaning beyond the terse schema text: it explains rotate's effect on the prior link and both visibility enum values ('link' = anyone holding it reads; 'members' = only members, after proving their email). The analytics-only params (context, llm_model) are correctly left to their verbose schema entries.

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 the resource precisely ('A workbook's share link: a URL that always opens its current version, with its sources') and enumerates the three actions (show/create/rotate), so the agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It does not, however, differentiate itself from confusable siblings such as link_workbook or unlink_workbook, which is the only gap in an otherwise sharp statement of purpose.

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?

It gives per-action when-to-use guidance: 'show' is the default that reports share state, 'create' makes a link, and 'rotate' is explicitly for 'a link that reached someone it should not have.' It also adds a procedural rule, 'confirm with the user,' before publishing. No alternative tool is named, so it stops short of full explicit routing guidance.

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