Resolve a SharePoint link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: links can expire/be revoked, resolving costs a round trip, and the returned IDs are stable. It doesn't cover failure modes or auth requirements, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed, exceeding a bare description.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a succinct rationale for reuse. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the input, output, and usage context. It could mention error handling (e.g., invalid link) but is otherwise coherent and sufficient.

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?

The schema description for 'link' is 100% covered ('SharePoint sharing link or direct document URL'). The description reinforces this and adds the purpose of stable IDs, but it doesn't provide format examples or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter.

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 clearly states the verb 'Convert' and the resource 'SharePoint sharing link or document URL' into 'driveId/itemId values'. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_excel_sheets or get_cell_range, which focus on sheet operations.

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 explicitly says 'Call this once and reuse the IDs' and explains why (links can expire, extra Graph round trip). This is clear usage guidance, though it doesn't mention explicit exclusions or alternatives. However, given the unique purpose, this is sufficient.

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