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

Annotations flag a non-idempotent, non-read-only, open-world operation, and the description adds the crucial behavioral detail the annotations cannot express: for a build, minting a new link revokes the previous one, while a design link is stable and repeatable. It also notes the link is free and requires no login for the recipient.

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 the key use case; every sentence carries operational information (routing, exclusivity, revocation). It is on the longer side, but no sentence is filler, so only a small deduction for density.

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 still covers what the agent needs: what the link returns (one stacked page, PDF-printable), which parameter selects which resource, the exclusivity rule, and the revocation/idempotency difference between the two paths.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: concept_id produces a single stacked page that reads as a whole design and prints to PDF, build_run_id shares a finished built page, and the two are mutually exclusive. That mutual-exclusion rule is not in the schema and materially affects invocation.

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?

The description states a specific action (mints a public no-login link) and resource (design or built page), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the login-walled dashboard/app link and from export_page. An agent can route here correctly without inspecting other schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use scenarios ('send me the designs', 'forward this to my client'), explicit when-not (never hand over a dashboard/app link), names the alternative (export_page) for source-file requests, and states the mutual exclusivity of the two ID parameters.

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