move_generate_share_code

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, implying potential side effects, but the description does not disclose what happens when a share code is generated (e.g., persistence, expiry, access implications). It adds little beyond the annotations already convey.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and target resource efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, so an agent may not understand side effects or when to prefer this over sibling tools.

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 has one parameter (file_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds some meaning by clarifying the file_id refers to a 'job output file', but it does not explain format, constraints, or how to obtain the value.

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 a specific resource ('a shareable code and URL for a job output file'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like move_get_file or move_download_job_outputs by focusing on creating a share artifact.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. The phrase 'for a job output file' is context but does not help the agent decide between this and other file-related tools.

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