share_mission

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

The description discloses that the link is public and allows viewing of mission details and waypoints, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not specify any permissions needed, whether the link is permanent or revocable, or if the operation is idempotent.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes value.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and provides a usage hint. However, it does not specify the return value (the share URL) or potential error conditions, which would improve 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 has 100% coverage with a description of the mission_id parameter. The description adds a hint to use list_missions to find IDs, which aids parameter acquisition but does not add new semantic detail about the parameter itself.

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 generates a public share link for a mission, distinguishing it from all sibling tools that perform other operations like create, duplicate, or export missions.

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?

Explicitly directs the user to use list_missions to find mission IDs, providing a helpful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for other operations.

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