Issue a public share link for a Rootr form

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

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive mutation. The description adds that a new token is issued, but does not detail side effects (e.g., whether multiple links can exist or if old links are invalidated). With annotations covering safety, the description provides adequate but minimal behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a necessary cross-reference to rootr_update_form. No superfluous text.

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 creation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and links to a related tool. It omits explicit mention of the return value (the link/token), but the agent can infer it.

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% with formId described as 'FORM node id'. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 tool issues a new public share link for a Rootr form to allow external submission, with specific verb (issue) and resource (share link/token). It distinguishes from sibling rootr_list_form_share_links by focusing on creation.

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 provides context that the tool is for creating a link after the form's public-submit mode is configured via rootr_update_form. This implicitly guides when to use it, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison with alternatives like rootr_list_form_share_links.

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