create_private_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions the enterprise requirement and the conditional param requirement, but does not disclose any behavioral traits: what happens if the link expires, auth/permissions needed, rate limits, or that this creates a new resource (implying mutation and potential non-idempotency). This is a significant gap for a creation tool.

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?

The description is very concise with only two sentences. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds a critical requirement. It could potentially add a bit more behavioral context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given that this is a creation tool with a 4-parameter input schema and an output schema present (but no details provided), the description covers the basic purpose and a critical constraint. However, it lacks important context: what does the output look like? What permissions are needed? What's the effect of omissions? The enterprise qualifier helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing transparency.

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%, providing baseline. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that at least one of expires_at or max_usage_count is required, which is an important constraint not obvious from individual property descriptions. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'label' is used for or whether event_type_id refers to a specific event type ID.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('private booking link for an event type'), and clearly distinguishes it from its siblings like list_private_links, update_private_link, and delete_private_link. The Enterprise edition mention adds helpful context.

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 clearly states a critical usage requirement: 'At least one of expires_at or max_usage_count is required.' This tells the agent what parameters must be provided for the tool to work correctly. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_private_link for modifying existing links.

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