Generate one-time config link

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

With empty annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the feature-flag requirement, which is valuable, but does not disclose link expiration, whether the link is truly single-use, or whether generating a new link invalidates previous ones. The return value (presumably a URL) is also not explicitly stated.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence clearly states the action, and the second sentence provides a critical prerequisite. There is no filler or redundancy, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity and full parameter schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete by explicitly explaining what the tool returns (e.g., the generated link). This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 already provides full coverage for the single parameter (clientId) with a helpful description ('Numeric ID of the client (see list_clients)'). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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's primary action: generating a one-time download link for a client configuration that can be shared with the end user. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_client_config (direct config retrieval) and get_client_qrcode (QR code), making the intent unambiguous.

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 clear usage context by stating the link 'can be shared with the end user' and calling out a necessary prerequisite (WG_ENABLE_ONE_TIME_LINKS enabled). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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