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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false): it discloses that revoke permanently kills the URL and that a later create yields a new one, that an active e-mail schedule auto-regenerates a link, that anyone with the link sees all widgets/live numbers/AI summaries, that passwords are stored hashed and never returned, that Deleted reports cannot be shared, and that write actions require confirm:true or only a preview is returned.

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 action semantics, then settings, then security/return behavior in a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause carries actionable information; a slight trim would still be possible.

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 compensates by stating the return value ('Returns the share URL, on the workspace's verified custom domain when there is one') and by covering permissions, side effects, and the preview/confirm protocol. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds effect-level meaning: enabled=false keeps the link but shows 'not available', password null removes it and is stored hashed, allowDateChange exposes data beyond the report's own range, and confirm/previewToken govern the preview-then-apply flow.

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 set (create/update/revoke) on a specific resource (a report's share link, anchored to the Share panel). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings: 'It does not e-mail the link (send_report does) and does not change the report.'

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?

Explains exactly what each of the three actions does and when each applies (create vs update vs revoke), names the alternative tool for e-mailing, and states the confirm/preview precondition. An agent knows both when and when-not to call it.

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