rebuild_share_link_bundle

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

Annotations (idempotentHint, non-destructive, not read-only) already cover the safety profile. The description adds the valuable behavioral guarantee that 'the link (slug) stays the same', which is not inferable from the schema or annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 filler, and the key information is front-loaded. The first clause states the action, the second adds use cases, and the final sentence addresses a user's likely concern about link stability. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent operation, the description covers the what, when, and the stability guarantee. It does not mention return values or asynchronous behavior, but given the annotations and simplicity of the tool, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter, but it never explicitly states that 'id' is the identifier of the share link bundle to rebuild. The type and required status are in the schema, and the context makes it obvious, so this is adequate but not compensating fully.

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 names a specific verb ('Re-queue'), a concrete resource ('share link bundle's ZIP build'), and the purpose ('after it failed or its documents changed'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the CRUD siblings like create_share_link_bundle and delete_share_link_bundle by focusing on a rebuild action.

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 gives explicit trigger scenarios ('after it failed or its documents changed'), making it clear when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scenarios plus sibling names imply the distinction from create/list/delete operations.

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