Hand off a temporary Playground

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

Annotations already cover safety traits such as openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond them: the link is secret, an expiry is returned, view links cannot become editable, and no account storage or execution occurs. It does not fully describe authorization or response shape.

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 compact and front-loads the key usage restriction before the action and caveats. Three short sentences carry purpose, constraints, and side-effect context with little waste, though 'No account storage or execution' is slightly terse.

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 only one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description supplies enough context to call the tool: when to use it, what it returns (link and expiry), and key edit/view constraints. It could be more explicit about output structure, but no major calling information is missing.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the edit/view distinction by explaining that a view link cannot become editable and that separate view access belongs only to its creator, giving the single enum parameter meaningful semantics beyond the raw values.

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 a clear verb-resource pairing: it returns this room's edit/view link and expiry for another agent or person. It distinguishes the action from generic read/write tools by framing it as a sharing handoff, though it does not name any sibling alternative.

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?

It gives an explicit gating condition: 'Only when the user requests sharing.' It also explains a key mode constraint (a view link cannot become editable and separate view access is creator-only), but it does not explicitly route to alternative sibling tools.

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