snapshots_create_snapshot_share_link

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the authentication context (agency-level token) which is useful, but does not mention side effects, response shape, or any other behavioral details. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides marginal value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that clearly states the purpose and the key prerequisite. It contains no filler or redundant details, and the most important info (token type) is front-loaded. Perfectly sized for the task.

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?

With 5 parameters including optional scoping parameters (share_location_id, relationship_number) and an enum for share_type, the description offers no guidance on when to use these options. The schema provides some descriptions, but the description body doesn't explain the differences or expected behavior. Given the lack of an output schema and the parameter nuances, more contextual detail would be helpful.

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 80%, so most parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions (except companyId). The description itself adds no parameter-specific information. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb (Create) and resource (Snapshot Share Link), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also adds a critical prerequisite (agency-level token) that distinguishes it from typical location-based operations. The name and description together differentiate it from sibling snapshot tools (which are 'get' operations).

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 mentions a required token type but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for creating share links, but no guidance is given on choosing among share types or comparing with related snapshot functions. The context is clear from the resource, but lacks explicit direction.

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