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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: a 30-day validity window, that calling again replaces the old link, that revoke:true terminates it, that nothing is created, and that viewers need no account. These mutation/expiry semantics are exactly the kind of context annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) hint at but do not spell out.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action comes first, then scope, then lifecycle details. The parenthetical and em-dash clauses make it a long single run-on, which costs a little readability, but every clause carries real information.

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 should ideally note what the agent receives back (e.g. the link/URL). It covers scope, lifecycle, and access model thoroughly, but that one return-value gap keeps it from full marks.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains revoke:true (ends the link) well, but sessionId — the required parameter — is never explained as to which session/draft it refers to, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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+resource ('make a read-only link' showing a drafted rikma on 1lev1) and enumerates exactly what the preview contains: products, missions, resources, contributors, and share formation. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like proposeRikmaBlueprintTool or listRikmaProcessesTool.

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 clear context for when to reach for it — to hand a preview to partners, with no account required to view. It does not name an explicit alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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