infomaniak_create_drive_share_link

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context with 'Two-phase commit with current share-link guard,' alerting the agent to a multi-step process and a potential existing-link check that would not be known from annotations alone. However, the exact semantics (e.g., failure vs. replacement) remain vague.

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 long and every word contributes: action, endpoint, and a critical behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema, this tool has a complex shape: 4 parameters including a nested unstructured 'link' object, and a non-idempotent create operation with a two-phase commit. The description does not explain how to construct the link payload, when confirmation_token is needed, or what the 'current share-link guard' does. Sibling tools for discovery are also not referenced.

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 75%, with drive_id, file_id, and link already described. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond repeating endpoint variables. The 'two-phase commit' hint may relate to confirmation_token, but the connection is not made explicit, and the link object is left as an opaque payload.

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 'Create a kDrive share link' with a specific endpoint (POST /2/drive/{drive_id}/files/{file_id}/link), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_drive_share_link, list_drive_share_links, and remove_drive_share_link.

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 implies usage when one wants to create a new share link, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_drive_share_link or list_drive_share_links. The mention of 'current share-link guard' hints at a precondition but leaves the agent guessing whether to check for existing links first.

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