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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered structurally. The description usefully reinforces that the resulting link is public (matching openWorld) and that the operation is create-or-return, but adds no detail on permissions, rate limits, or what invalidates an existing link.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the mutation and resource stated immediately and zero filler. Every clause carries meaning.

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 simple two-parameter tool this covers the core operation and ownership constraint. But with no output schema, the agent gets no hint about what is returned (URL, token, expiry) or what distinguishes an existing active link from a newly created one, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 50%: approvedSharingChange is documented ('True only after the user approved creating a public share link') but storyId is bare. The description names neither parameter and adds no semantics, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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?

Specific verb pair (create or return) plus the resource (public share link for a story) and scope (owned by the connected account). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_story_share_links and revoke_story_share_link, which involve the same resource but different operations.

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 'create or return the active' phrasing implies idempotent, get-or-create behavior, which hints at when this is appropriate. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over publish_story_to_world or how it relates to revoke_story_share_link, and no explicit when-not conditions are given.

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