create_share_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the secret is encrypted client-side into the URL fragment and never sent to a server, and that links expire. However, it omits auth requirements, what the return value looks like (no output schema exists), and what happens when ttl or maxViews limits are hit.

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 compact sentences, with the security-relevant detail front-loaded after the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place and there is no padding.

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 simple three-parameter tool whose schema is fully documented and that returns a link, the description covers the essential mechanics and the non-obvious privacy property. It could be stronger with a note on prerequisites and return format, but it is nearly complete for this complexity level.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, ttl, and maxViews with defaults and formats. The description adds only the concept of expiry and does not elaborate on parameter behavior beyond the schema. 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 verb and resource ('Create an encrypted, expiring share link for a secret') and adds the key security property that the secret lives in the URL fragment. An agent can tell this apart from sibling tools like resolve_secret or receive_share, though the description does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'share link for a secret', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to siblings such as receive_share or resolve_secret. There is no mention of prerequisites like the secret already existing in the store.

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