Create exact version share link

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the idempotentHint annotation by disclosing that the link is 'durable' and that reusing the key yields the original result. It also clarifies 'recover' behavior. No contradiction with annotations; readOnlyHint=false aligns with a write operation.

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 two compact sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding the key idempotency nuance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given no output schema and no param details, the description should clarify what the tool returns and under what conditions. It explains durability and idempotency but does not state the response format (e.g., a URL) or error scenarios like invalid version IDs. Moderate completeness for a simple tool, but key expectations are missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It indirectly covers 'access' via 'public or code-protected' and 'idempotency_key' via reusing behavior, but it does not explain 'page', 'project_id', or 'version_id' beyond generic terms. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create or recover') and identifies the resource ('a durable public or code-protected link for one exact saved version'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_version_share_link and revoke_version_share_link by emphasizing creation/recovery and exact version scoping.

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 provides clear context for idempotent usage: 'Reusing the idempotency key returns the original result' guides agents on when to reuse vs. create new. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_version_share_link or revoke_version_share_link, so alternatives are implied rather than stated.

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