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

Annotations already signal that this is a mutating but non-destructive operation; the description adds that it enables public-link visibility, which is useful privacy context. However, it does not disclose whether the link can be revoked, whether ownership permissions are required, or what the return value contains, so it only partially expands beyond the 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence conveys the action before any details. There is no filler, and every word contributes to either the purpose or the expected outcome.

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 phrase 'return it' is ambiguous; an agent cannot tell whether the result is the public link, the deck object, or a status. The guest_token condition is already covered by the schema, so the main missing piece is a clear return contract.

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?

The description does not explain deck_id or guest_token; only the schema describes guest_token and places constraints on deck_id. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description should compensate for parameter semantics but does not, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb phrase, 'Turn on the public link for a deck,' naming both the action and the resource. This makes share_deck's job unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like see_deck and deck_status.

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 implies the tool is for making a deck publicly accessible via a link, but it never explicitly states when to prefer share_deck over alternatives or when not to use it. The guest_token condition is documented in the schema, not in the description, so no direct tool-selection guidance is provided.

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