Set share links

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

Annotations already declare the mutation is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: omitted flags remain unchanged, and the call returns the current links, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention permission requirements or security implications of enabling write links, but the added partial-update and return behavior is substantive.

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 well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the mutation and then adds the return and partial-update behavior 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 small mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what is left unchanged, and what is returned. It lacks explicit permission details and a fuller explanation of each access mode, but the key behavioral facts needed to call it correctly are present.

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 only 25%, but the description compensates by naming the read, review, and write flags and explaining that omitted flags stay unchanged. Project_id is not described in the text, though the schema already documents it with a retrieval hint.

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 states a specific verb ('Turn ... on or off'), a specific resource ('anyone-with-the-link URLs'), and the exact access modes affected ('read, review and write access'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from member-management siblings such as typst_invite_member and typst_update_member.

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 implies when this tool is appropriate by focusing on anyone-with-the-link access rather than member invitations, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The note that omitted flags stay unchanged is a useful usage constraint for partial updates.

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