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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden. It describes the behavior (persist to cloud, creates two URLs) and the edit/view distinction. But it doesn't disclose whether the share is permanent/reversible, any ephmeral aspect of editUrl, or content that gets publicized. The word 'permanent share' hints at persistence but the reversibility/side effects aren't explained.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. Front-loads the main action, names the two key return values, and ends with concrete usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-param tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It explains both return values and gives usage guidance. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it doesn't fully clarify what the editUrl vs viewUrl look like or what the visual canvas entails, and whether sharing is reversible.

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 both parameters (editId and viewId) are documented in the schema. The description adds context that these correspond to editUrl and viewUrl but doesn't add meaningful detail about how to construct/use custom ids that isn't evident from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb+resource ('Persist the current workspace to the cloud') and distinguishes this from siblings by noting it creates a 'permanent share'. It mentions the two return values (editUrl and viewUrl). It doesn't fully differentiate from open_shared or the export tools, but the core purpose is clear and specific.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer viewUrl when the user only needs to see the map.' This directly helps the agent choose which returned URL to use. However, it doesn't state when to use this vs. alternatives like export_json or open_shared, or note any limits on when sharing is appropriate.

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