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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it partly meets it by explaining that each link gets its own code and trace code so view history attributes viewers per share. It omits authorization requirements, uniqueness constraints on trace_code, and whether revocation/limits apply.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the rationale sentence about trace codes justifies its length. 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?

For a no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, an agent would still want to know what is returned (a link URL/code?) and what permissions are needed. The description covers the conceptual 'why' but leaves the operational mechanics thin.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description's note about per-link codes adds conceptual context but no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Create an additional share link for a document') plus the scoping condition that the document must already exist. The word 'additional' signals the additive nature, though it never names the sibling ncrypt_create_share_link to make the distinction unambiguous.

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?

'A document can be shared as many times as needed' implies this is the repeat-share path, which is implied usage rather than explicit routing. With a near-identical sibling (ncrypt_create_share_link) present, the description should say when to pick one over the other, and it does not.

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