Share / unshare asset

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the public link requires no login, revoking breaks the link for everyone who already has it, and the response includes a `disclosure.notice` that must be relayed for AI-generated content. That disclosure requirement is a genuinely non-obvious behavioral contract, though the description doesn't say where the URL appears in the reply.

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-loads the primary action and its consequence, then layers the secondary flag, the usage constraint, and the reply note. Dense and largely waste-free, though the favorite toggle sentence interrupts the share/revoke flow.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers consequence, idempotence implications, and the required disclosure relay. The one remaining gap is not naming the response field that carries the shareable URL.

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 only 33%, with `public` documented but `assetId` and `favorite` bare. The description compensates by framing `favorite` as an independent toggle and by clarifying that sharing means public-on/off, leaving only the obvious identifier undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('make an asset public and get a shareable URL'), plus the inverse action ('revoke sharing'), and adds the secondary favorite toggle. No sibling tool covers sharing, so the operation is unambiguous against the surrounding asset tools.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Only change sharing when the user asked to'), which is exactly the guardrail needed for a state-changing share action. It does not explain when the favorite toggle should be used alone versus combined with a share change, leaving that to inference.

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