Mint a no-login tweak link — hand it to your human

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

The description discloses key behaviors: the secret is shown once, links don't expire, they can be revoked, and the tool only affects the specified chart. Since annotations are minimal (only openWorldHint), the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value—purpose, prerequisite, scope, usage trigger, and security/revocation info. It is front-loaded with the main action and follows with important constraints, so it's well-structured and not wasteful.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, scope, when to use, and link behavior (expiration/revocation). An agent has all necessary information to call it 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 description coverage is 100% (the single 'id' parameter has a description 'ast_...'). The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the purpose and context make it clear the id is the chart identifier. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a URL for a no-login tweak panel on a single chart, with specific scope (view, tweak, republish) and exclusions (never delete, never spend credits). This distinguishes it from siblings like revoke_edit_link and publish_asset.

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 says to offer this when the request is aesthetic fine-tuning, and provides a prerequisite (must be a published chart, not a draft). It also references revoke_edit_link for revocation, giving clear routing among alternatives.

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