create_share_link

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden for behavioral nuance. It adds the non-obvious immutability trait ('Share links can't be edited afterwards') and the delete-and-recreate workflow, which is valuable context not present in the schema. It could also mention permission requirements or that the link exposes the document, but the core mutation behavior is well-covered and nothing contradicts the 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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: state the action, note optional parameters, and provide the immutability warning plus alternative routing. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 three-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, optional parameters, the no-edit behavioral constraint, and the correct alternative for multi-document ZIP links. The only gap is that, with no output schema, the agent is not told what the response returns (e.g., the share link URL), but this is a minor omission given the clear tool semantics.

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%: each parameter (document, expiration, file_version) is already documented with types, ISO format, null handling, and the default 'archive'. The description's mention of 'expiration date and file version (archive or original)' restates the schema without adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a share link for a document') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_share_link_bundle, which is for 'several documents as one ZIP link'. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and which sibling it is not, even without reading the 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?

Directly names the alternative create_share_link_bundle and the condition that selects it (sharing several documents as one ZIP link). It also gives actionable guidance for the no-edit case: to change the expiry, delete and recreate, which tells the agent the correct workflow instead of searching for a nonexistent update tool.

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