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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the tracking semantics of the created link and the fact that it returns the URL — meaningful because there is no output schema.

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 short sentences, action first, return value second; nothing redundant or padded.

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, and the description helpfully states the return value. However, for a 7-parameter mutation with 57% schema coverage it leaves email/company/videoId semantics and expiration defaults to the schema or to inference.

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 only 57% (email, company, videoId undocumented), and the description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema's own notes on name, note, title, and expiresInDays. It does not compensate for the uncovered fields.

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 concrete verb+resource (make a tracked link to a video) and narrows the scope to 'one person' with the tracking effect, which cleanly separates it from list_links and the upload siblings.

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?

'for one person, so every view is tied to them' implies the per-recipient use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note on what happens if the same person is linked twice.

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