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

Annotations cover the safety profile (write, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the link format, that clicks are counted, that it opens the public event page, and that the caller must be host. It does not state what happens on repeat calls with the same source/campaign.

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-loaded with the core action and tightly worded; every clause carries information. The em-dash-delimited clauses make it slightly dense but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema, so the description reasonably carries return-side context (clicks counted, opens public page). For a 4-param mutation tool it is nearly complete; the only real gap is the undocumented target_type parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains source with examples (instagram, newsletter), flags campaign as optional, and names event_id as required, but says nothing about target_type, whose only enum value ('loops') is left unexplained.

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 (create) and resource (trackable share link / custom link) with scope ('for a live event') and even the link format. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_share_links or update_open_link_config without opening a schema.

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 preconditions: 'Requires event_id; host only' and scopes the use case to a live event. However, it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so routing guidance is contextual rather than complete.

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