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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly structured. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: viewers get read-only access, anyone with the link can open it, and the revoke path (public=false) exists. It stops short of saying what revoking does to already-distributed links.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the returned link, then justifies the sibling routing. Four sentences, one of which ("This is usually the deliverable a person actually wants") is slightly chatty but still carries routing value.

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 correctly promises the link as the return value, and it covers the mutation and its access implications for a 2-parameter tool. Remaining gap is only the lifecycle of links after revocation.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the public default and the revoke semantics. The description reinforces the on/off framing but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+effect: turning public link sharing on or off for a project and returning the link. It explicitly separates itself from the closest sibling by noting open_in_editor's link only works for the owning account, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the selecting condition directly ("usually the deliverable a person actually wants") and names the alternative (open_in_editor) plus the reason it fails for handoff. It also adds a when-not caution: "only share what you mean to."

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