Get share links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the security-relevant trait that links bypass Authorization, the side effect that this GET-shaped tool mints/reuses links, the reuse rule ('the active link is reused unless label or ttlDays ask for a separate one'), and expiry/revocation semantics. It also explains what happens for unrendered clips ('say why'), which prevents blind retries.

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?

Front-loaded with the key distinguishing fact (public, no-auth download links) followed by return shape and link-lifecycle rules. The first sentence is dense with consumer examples but each serves agent selection; nothing is padding, though the prose is tighter-packed than ideal.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description inlines the return structure ({ clips: [{ clipId, links: { clip, thumb, srt, vtt } }], export }) with per-link { linkId, url, expiresAt }. Combined with reuse/expiry/revocation rules and the unrendered-clip failure mode, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by tying label and ttlDays to link-identity behavior ('ask for a separate one') — that interaction is not expressed in the schema descriptions. It also frames the non-obvious default behavior (active link reuse) that the parameters override.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — returns share links that anyone can download without an Authorization header — plus the shape of the result. It is clearly distinguishable from the adjacent list_media_links and revoke_media_link tools, which it implicitly references via revoke semantics.

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?

Gives concrete consumer scenarios (Buffer/Metricool schedulers, Instagram's video_url, Zapier/Make, or a person) that tell an agent when to reach for this tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with list_media_links (which presumably lists already-created links) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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