Publish a private CRID

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable operational context: repeating the call creates another resource and the recommended recovery path via get_qurl/list_qurls. It also discloses the 'does not verify payment' caveat, though it does not describe permissions or auth requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then modes, then caveats and alternatives, with every sentence carrying information. It is dense and slightly list-like, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation semantics, non-idempotency, and sibling routing. It stops short of describing auth/permission needs or what a CRID resource actually is, which would fully round out a write tool with a nested policy object.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does explain all five mode values (keys, invite_only, email_capture, review, contract) with their access semantics. It does not define contract_id's relationship to contract mode or clarify target_url beyond what the schema implies, leaving a small gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Publish a URL with private access') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_qurl, which handles public sharing. An agent can separate publish_crid from create_qurl without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing: use create_qurl for public sharing, get_qurl/list_qurls to resolve an uncertain result before retrying, and the qURL CLI for local apps. It also states the creation version (1), which is a concrete prerequisite rather than an inference.

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