create_share_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains that the link is public, read-only, requires no account, links never expire unless expiresInDays is set, and viewers see live pin status. This fully discloses behavioral traits.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states the primary action and result, followed by details on accessibility, use cases, optional parameters, and behavior. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description thoroughly covers what the tool does, what the link contains, sharing properties, optional parameters, and link expiration behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke 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 descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining defaults (e.g., title defaults to '<N> design notes on <domain>'), constraints (expiresInDays range 1–365), and usage context for each parameter beyond their schema descriptions.

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 mints a public read-only crit report link for a project, with specific details on what it contains (numbered pins, threads, screenshots, status, trail). This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like add_agent_reply, approve_pin, etc.

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 usage context: 'Perfect for handing a design crit to a founder/client, or showing stakeholders what shipped.' It also mentions optional scoping to a single page URL. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives.

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