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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the link is public and anyone holding it can see the artifact, even without an account, and revoke=true removes an existing link. It also clarifies that the destructive action is the revoke path rather than sharing itself, reconciling destructiveHint=true with the create behavior, and discloses the return value (the URL).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and its exposure consequence, then the revoke variant, then the return value. No filler or 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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers visibility, the revoke path, and the returned URL, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It omits details like whether re-sharing yields the same URL or whether links expire, which are minor for a two-param tool.

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 in the schema, including revoke's boolean semantics and where artifact_id comes from. The description's note about revoke repeats the schema rather than adding format or edge-case detail, so baseline 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 resource ("put a generated item behind a public link") plus the outcome ("Returns the URL"). This clearly separates it from read/list/get siblings like get_artifact, read_artifact and list_artifacts without the agent needing to open a 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 concrete usage contexts ("posted, embedded in a page or opened by someone with no YouSpot account") and explains the revoke=true variant as the teardown path. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to share, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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