Create a guest link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/side-effect profile is covered. The description goes beyond that with genuinely useful context: the permission model of the created user, default/max expiry, revocability, and secret-handling of the returned URL. Return format beyond 'the URL' is not described, and no output schema exists, but the safety-relevant behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then caveats in a clearly separated emphasis block. Every sentence carries information, though the permission-model paragraph is dense enough that it borders on over-length for a create tool.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the missing pieces: what is created, instance-type restriction, expiry/revocation lifecycle, and the need to treat the returned URL as a secret. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is absent.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description restates the admin flag and the 24h default / 30-day cap, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific compound verb+resource: creates a non-admin Home Assistant user plus a one-click login URL, and clarifies admin=true is the exception. An agent can distinguish this from ha_create_user (no guest link) and vomehome_get_login_url (owner login URL) without opening a schema.

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 names the precondition (only works for Vome-hosted instances; minting a token for a non-owner needs direct VM network access), names the alternative for early termination (vomehome_revoke_guest_link), and gives an explicit when-not-to-use (do not point at somebody's actual house).

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