Share page

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure. It reveals the public-access nature of the created link and differentiates the two returned URL formats. It does not cover link revocation or expiration details, but the core side effect (creating a public share) is disclosed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action, the outcome, and the return types. No 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?

Given the simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the resource (page), the access model (public link), and the return values (web URL and raw-Markdown URL). It omits details like link expiration behavior, but the schema covers that and the description remains complete for basic usage.

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 both parameters described in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing that a page is shared and that two URL types are produced.

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?

Description states 'Create a public magic link for a page' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_page by focusing on sharing with unauthenticated readers.

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?

Explicitly notes the link allows unauthenticated access ('anyone with the link can read it without logging in') and that the raw-Markdown URL is ideal for agents, giving clear usage context. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sharing use case is well implied.

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