Create a one-time secret link

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

Annotations only declare write/open-world/non-idempotent/non-destructive, so the description carries the interesting load and does: client-side encryption, LinkPilot only holding ciphertext, one-time self-destruct, and the irrecoverability of a lost URL. It also warns that the plaintext transits this conversation, which is exactly the kind of non-obvious operational caveat an agent needs.

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?

Purpose and the destructive/irreversible consequences are front-loaded, and every sentence is substantive. It runs five sentences plus a caveat about plaintext passing through the conversation, which is justified by the security stakes but is on the long side.

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 no output schema, the description still explains the return value thoroughly: a share URL whose post-'#' portion is the decryption key and which must be forwarded verbatim. Combined with the coverage of loss, expiry and passphrase handling, an agent has everything needed to call and relay the result correctly.

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 the property descriptions are already detailed, so the schema does most of the work. The description still adds cross-parameter meaning: why the URL must be delivered intact (the '#' fragment is the key), and why passphrase/burn_after_read behave as they do, which reinforces defaults the schema states.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('share a password, API key, token or private note as a link') and names the exact behavior that defines the tool: a link that self-destructs after one open. That single property cleanly separates it from siblings like create_short_link and list_secrets.

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 says when to prefer this ('Use this instead of putting a credential in a chat message or an email') and supplies a fallback path when the constraint is even tighter ('tell the user to create it themselves at uselinkpilot.com instead'). Routing conditions are stated, not inferred.

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