create_review_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the no-account-required client experience, the Approve/Request Changes options, and that a URL is returned. This is substantial added context, though it stops short of mentioning side effects like link expiration mechanics or prerequisites beyond assembling the video.

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 sentences deliver a complete workflow: trigger condition, steps, client interaction, and the returned artifact. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description clearly states the return value ('Returns the review URL'). It covers the client-facing flow and the setup step, which is sufficient for basic usage. However, it omits details like what happens when the video isn't ready, link expiration defaults (though in schema), or how to check review status, which is delegated to a sibling tool and need not be in this description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by linking output_path to create_video_assembly and noting that metadata is 'shown in the review room', but does not elaborate on parameter formats or behaviors that the schema already documents. It does not compensate beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 ('generate') and resource ('private shareable review link') with a clear trigger condition ('After assembling a video'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by describing the client-facing review flow (Preview Room, Approve/Request Changes), which is unique among the listed tools.

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 phrase 'After assembling a video' establishes a clear sequencing context, and the note that output_path should be 'the path returned by create_video_assembly' explicitly ties usage to a prior tool. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for internal review, or if public sharing is needed), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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