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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true): collision handling (never overwrites, appends a number), 500 MB per-file cap, link expiry (60 min default, up to 24 hours), dependence on the computer being online, and the write-permission requirement. This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded with the core action, followed by tightly packed operational facts without filler. Every sentence (naming behavior, size cap, expiry, online requirement, permission) earns its place.

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 carries the response expectation ('Give the user the url') and all key constraints an agent needs to invoke correctly: expiry, size limit, naming, permission, and device-online dependency.

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 schema already documents folder, minutes, and deviceId. The description reinforces the minutes default and upper bound but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and outcome: 'Make a link where the user picks files on their phone ... saved into a folder on a computer.' An agent immediately understands this mediates phone-to-computer file transfer, a unique capability among siblings like share_file (computer-to-somewhere) and write_file.

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 scenario is implied ('user picks files on their phone') but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as share_file, nor prerequisites for creating the link. Usage must be inferred from the scenario description.

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