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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description supplies the why and the blast radius: the recipient gets a TURNED-OFF copy stripped of accounts, posts, sequences, team members and HTTP keys. It also clarifies that the link tracks the live flow while copies already taken persist with their owners — exactly the disclosure needed to justify the destructive flag.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the consequence for the recipient, then lifecycle, then the eligibility restriction. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 exists, and the description covers what gets produced (a link, or the existing one), what the recipient sees, what is stripped, and how long the link lives. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 flowId and idempotencyKey are already documented, but the description adds real selection semantics: the flow must be one of the user's own and must not itself have been imported. No added syntax or format detail beyond that.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Create (or return) a private link to one of the user's own flows') and makes the share semantics unmistakable. An agent can distinguish it from unshare_automation, import_shared_automation, and duplicate_automation without opening any 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?

Explicitly frames the lifecycle against unshare_automation ('until unshare_automation'), explains the idempotent 'or return' behavior, and states a hard eligibility rule: a flow imported from someone else cannot be shared. It lacks a direct pointer to the receive-side sibling (import_shared_automation), which keeps it short of a 5.

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