Create share link

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Reporter emails are hidden on shared views' and implies a read-only link creation. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) are consistent with a mutation action.

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, zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the privacy note is added 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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at return value (e.g., the generated link). It covers purpose and privacy but omits return details. For a simple tool with two params, it is adequate but not complete.

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 50% (only expires_in_days has a description). The description adds no parameter details; project_id is not explained. The description does not compensate for the missing schema description of project_id.

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 the verb 'mint' for a 'read-only public review link for a project', clearly stating the resource and action. The purpose is distinct from siblings (e.g., list_annotations, get_annotation) which are about viewing internal annotations, not sharing externally.

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 usage when a stakeholder needs to review annotations without an account, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like list_annotations for internal sharing.

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