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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries full burden. It describes the action ('make readable' or 'private again') but lacks behavioral context such as whether it requires permissions, whether old URLs stop working when made private, or any side effects. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and outcome. No filler, concise, and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core functionality and the schema provides parameter details. Some missing context (e.g., permissions, revocation of URLs) but for a straightforward toggle this is a minor 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it essentially restates the 'public' parameter's effect. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 a specific verb ('Make') and resource ('a file'), and specifies the outcome: readable by anyone via URL or private again. It distinguishes from sibling file tools like files_get, files_put, and files_delete by focusing on sharing state.

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 description clearly implies the usage context: when you want to change a file's public accessibility. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use files_get to read instead' or 'requires ownership', but the context is sufficiently clear for a simple toggle.

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