create_share_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden well: it discloses that the link is PUBLIC, read-only, that it never expires by default unless expiresInDays is given, and that the returned token is sensitive. It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then parameter behavior, then the security caveat. Every sentence adds information and none 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavior: security scope, TTL default, and the returned-token warning. It stops short of explaining the projectId requirement and any auth constraints, leaving minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: expiresInDays is explained as a TTL with the default-when-omitted behavior, settings is described as a scope with a concrete example ({ includedGoalIds: [...] }) clarifying the free-form object. projectId is only implied by 'project view' rather than named.

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 ('Mint') and resource ('PUBLIC read-only link to the project view'), clearly separating it from list_share_links and revoke_share_link. The 'PUBLIC read-only' qualifier makes the created artifact unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

Usage is implied by the action (you mint a link when you want to share a project view), and there are conditional hints about expiresInDays and settings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for cases like revoking or listing existing links.

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