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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds meaningful behavior on top by identifying that the output is publicly reachable, that access can be gated with `password`, and that links expire via `ttl_days`. It does not state what happens when ttl_days is omitted (permanent link?) or what the call returns, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action followed by a compact, semicolon-delimited enumeration of modes, and no sentence is filler. The dense punctuation and the trailing backticked parameter list are slightly less scannable than a structured layout, but nothing is wasted.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no parameter-level documentation, the description covers the mode-specific wiring well but omits the side parameters (name, size, mime_type) and says nothing about the returned link or error conditions. It is adequate to invoke the common cases but not complete for the whole surface.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it assigns semantics to kind, key, path, connection_id, target_connection_ids, download_id, password, ttl_days and title. The remaining parameters (name, size, mime_type) are left unexplained, so a handful of fields are undocumented in both places.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Создать публичную ссылку') and then disambiguates the three modes it can produce (file / inbox / archive). An agent can distinguish it from list_share_links and revoke_share_link purely from this text, since those names clearly cover listing and revocation rather than creation.

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 gives clear per-mode context by binding each kind value to the parameters it needs ('file' → connection_id + key or path from list_files; 'inbox' → connection_id + optional target_connection_ids; 'archive' → download_id), which functions as when-to-use guidance among the modes. It stops short of stating what not to use it for (for example private transfers via create_transfer) or any prerequisite checks.

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