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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing that it validates the project, returns a URL, and intentionally does not render anything. However, it does not go into side effects of creating a shareable link (e.g., making the project accessible), but with annotations covering destructive/read-only, this is adequate.

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 description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then differentiation, usage timing, and return value. Every sentence contributes new information, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, a detailed schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. No critical gaps remain for an agent 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 coverage is 100% and the schema's project_id description is thorough, explaining when to pass it and when to omit it. The tool description adds no parameter-specific instructions beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool creates a shareable link that opens the project in the Clipkit web editor. It specifies the action (create a link), the resource (current project), and differentiates from render_video by noting nothing is rendered. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like preview_still or validate_project.

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 explicitly says 'Use after composing or editing,' giving a clear temporal context. It also contrasts with render_video by stating 'nothing is rendered — that's render_video,' providing an explicit alternative. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and a notable exclusion.

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