Create per-recipient links

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

With annotations only indicating readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it creates links, attributes reads by name, supports per-recipient overrides, and requires Pro plan. It does not describe any side effects or system behavior in depth, but given the low annotation detail, this is a solid disclosure.

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 the primary purpose, usage constraint, key features, and a requirement. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown, but present), so return values are covered. The description covers purpose, usage, constraints, and optional features, making it complete for an AI agent to decide when and how to invoke it, especially given rich sibling context.

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 100% and parameters are well-described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that all recipients should be passed in a single call and that per-recipient overrides exist, tying the schema's nested properties to the tool's purpose. This enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 ('Mint') and clearly identifies the resource (tracked links per recipient for a document) and the core value proposition (per-recipient attribution instead of anonymous totals). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like everypage_share_pdf and everypage_list_variants by focusing on per-recipient creation.

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 when to use the tool: when per-recipient read attribution is needed. It also gives an operational guideline ('Pass every recipient in a single call') and a prerequisite (Pro plan). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the implied contrast with anonymous totals guides selection.

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