create-drive-item-share-link

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds significant context beyond these: it specifies that the action creates a new link or returns an existing one, describes the return value (permission with link.webUrl), and highlights that no email notification is sent. It does not cover rate limits or auth needs, but these are partly covered by annotations.

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 concise with about 4 sentences plus a tip. It is well-structured: first the purpose, then behavior, then tip with body structure, then usage comparison with a sibling. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description provides enough information to use the tool effectively: it explains the core behavior, return value, and when to use it. However, it does not detail every sub-property of the body (like message, recipients, sendNotification), but these are covered by the schema. Overall, it is thorough.

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%, but the description adds value by summarizing the body parameter with its most important fields (type, scope, password, expirationDateTime, retainInheritedPermissions) and their allowed values. This is not fully present in the schema, which lacks descriptions for type and scope. The description helps the agent understand required and optional fields.

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 it creates a sharing link for a driveItem and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'share-drive-item' by specifying that this tool is for generating a URL without sending email invitations. The behavior of returning an existing link if the same type already exists is also explained.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use this tool (to get a URL to paste without triggering notifications) and when to use the sibling 'share-drive-item' (for granting explicit access). Also mentions that DriveItem resources inherit sharing permissions from ancestors.

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