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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does supply real behavioral facts: the operation is a mutation that 'enables sharing', it consumes an owner plan share slot per ADR-0010 (a quota side effect an agent could not infer), and it requires a user session rather than service credentials. It still omits idempotency (what happens if a link already exists) and error behavior, so it is strong but not complete for an unannotated write tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the two constraints an agent most needs (quota consumption, session requirement). No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 four-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action, the quota cost and the auth mode, which is a reasonable minimum. It leaves gaps an agent would care about: whether an existing link is replaced, what the call returns (a URL?), and how the two expiry parameters interact.

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 75%, so the schema already explains role, expires_at and workspace_id; only expires_in_secs lacks a description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as how role interacts with sharing scope or how expires_at and expires_in_secs conflict, so it sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a share link and enable sharing for a workspace'. This clearly separates it from sibling operations like workspace.share_revoke_link or workspace.share_update_settings, though it never names an alternative explicitly. The parenthetical about the share slot adds a scoping detail rather than obscuring the purpose.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'User session only' rules out token/API-key callers, and the ADR-0010 note warns that the call consumes the owner's plan share slot, which is a soft hint to check quota first (account.share_quota exists as a sibling). There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over inviting a member or updating existing share settings, and no precondition such as whether a link already exists.

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