Create a share link

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

The description discloses multiple non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: 'A public link opens only that share URL; the original artifact visibility stays unchanged,' 'passcodes are shown once, while new link addresses can be retrieved later,' and 'Requires owner permission.' These details meaningfully inform an agent about side effects and constraints, more than the bare destructiveHint annotation.

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 five sentences, each adding critical information: purpose, policy choices, public-link scoping, return behavior, permission requirement, and a pointer to inspect existing shares. No filler or redundancy; it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the central behavior, access policies, return values (link and passcode), permission requirements, and a follow-up inspection recommendation. It does not detail every parameter (the schema does) or warn about destructive side effects beyond the annotation, but it provides enough context for an agent to call it correctly in most scenarios.

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 100%: every parameter has a clear description in the input schema, so the description does not need to re-explain each field. It does add context about policy options ('Choose public, signed-in, email-restricted or passcode access') and the one‑time passcode behavior, but it does not clarify parameters like versionId, expiresInDays, or share_token beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high coverage with modest added value.

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 states a specific verb ('Create a reader link'), a clear resource ('existing remote artifact'), and the intent ('when the user wants to share a report or page'). It also names the key access-policy choices, distinguishing it from any other artifact tool. No ambiguity remains about what this tool is for.

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 gives a clear trigger ('when the user wants to share a report or page') and explicitly instructs to 'Use get_site include:[shares] to inspect existing sharing records.' It also notes the owner-permission prerequisite. It does not name an alternative tool to avoid, but given the tool list, no other share-focused sibling exists, so the guidance is sufficient.

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