share_mission

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

The description explains the effect of sharing: 'Anyone with the link can view the mission details and waypoints', which implies the link provides read access. With no annotations provided, the description adequately conveys the behavioral impact, though it could mention if the link can be revoked or has an expiration.

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 two sentences long, concise and to the point. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the effect and provides a tip. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly restructured for even better front-loading.

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 tool (one string input, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does, the input requirement, and a practical hint. However, it lacks details like whether the link is permanent or temporary, which would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with a clear description for 'mission_id' as 'The UUID of the mission to share'. The description adds value by mentioning 'list_missions' to obtain the ID, which is helpful but not strictly necessary. The schema already provides sufficient parameter semantics.

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 verb 'generate' and the resource 'public share link for a mission', and specifies that anyone with the link can view mission details and waypoints. This distinguishes it from other mission tools like 'delete_mission' or 'update_mission'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to generate a share link for a mission. It also includes a recommendation to use 'list_missions' to find mission IDs, which helps the agent prepare the required input. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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