Create a public share link

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate a non-read, non-destructive mutation, which the description confirms ('creates a link'). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the two-step confirmation process and the implicit effect of creating a public access link. No contradictions; the description enhances understanding of the tool's usage pattern.

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, front-loads the purpose, and includes the critical confirmation requirement. No redundant or unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description would ideally specify what the tool returns (e.g., the token on first call, the share link on second) or the format of the created link. It briefly mentions 'receive a token' but does not confirm the response structure. For a creation tool, this gap reduces completeness. However, the description covers the core workflow adequately.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by tying the confirm_token parameter to the two-step flow ('call once to receive a token, then again with that token'), which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema description. The description does not elaborate on expires_at or recipe parameters further, but the schema already provides sufficient detail.

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 uses specific verbs ('creates a link', 'lets anyone read one recipe without logging in') and clearly identifies the resource (public share link for a recipe). It distinguishes from siblings like list_share_tokens and delete_share_token by focusing on creation and the two-step confirmation process.

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 explicitly states the two-step confirmation requirement ('call once to receive a token, then again with that token'), providing clear usage direction. It does not explicitly tell when not to use this tool, but sibling context implies alternatives for listing or deleting tokens. A 4 reflects clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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