drive_share_set_url

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

Goes far beyond the sparse annotations (openWorldHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). It discloses that the link is accessible to anyone without an invitation, that repeated calls update rather than duplicate, that the return shape is variable, and that passwords may appear in shell history—critical behavioral traits for safe invocation.

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?

Six sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, auth, public access, update semantics, return shape, security warning, and alternative tool. No filler or redundancy; the main purpose is front-loaded and every sentence 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 tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, this description is highly complete. It covers public-access implications, update behavior, return-value variability, a security risk, and the relevant alternative, giving the agent enough context to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning that role/password/expiration are updatable on subsequent calls, but it does not add new syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides for each 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 states the core function clearly: 'Create or update a public share link for a Proton Drive file or folder.' The verb phrase is specific and the resource is unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like drive_share_invite (private sharing) and drive_share_remove_url (removing links).

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Do not use for private sharing with specific people — use drive_share_invite instead.' It also notes that authentication is required and clarifies that the link is publicly accessible without a Proton account, making the when-to-use context very clear.

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