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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses concrete behavioral traits: the return shape matches lnkdrp_get_share, the specific error codes (plan_limit with upgrade link, received_copy permanent per-document), what shareEnabled does and does not restore (individually disabled and expired links stay off; archived docs never resolve), and that titles/summaries are untrusted author-written content.

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 core scope rule is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information. It is somewhat dense and the trailing untrusted-content caveat reads as appended boilerplate, but there is little genuine redundancy.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: return shape by reference to lnkdrp_get_share, idempotency/replay behavior, required arguments, and the plan and received-copy failure modes. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema with the same details (password null-to-remove, scope of each setting). The description largely consolidates rather than extends that schema text, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb+resource (update a document's sharing) and precisely delineates scope: shareEnabled is document-wide while allowDownload, password and allowRevisionHistory apply to the default link only. This scoping is exactly what separates it from sibling link-level tools, though it never names those siblings (e.g. lnkdrp_update_share_link) explicitly.

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 supplies clear operating context: at least one setting is required, shareEnabled:true on a received-copy document always fails with received_copy, and Free-plan cap/revision-history requests fail with plan_limit. What is missing is explicit routing to alternatives such as update_share_link or create_share_link when the caller actually wants to modify a non-default link.

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