Create viewer grant

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

Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those flags: the grant is short-lived, single-use, owner-scoped, and tied to an authenticated browser preview. This helps the agent predict consequences without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and key constraints before the purpose. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description captures the essential behavior, purpose, and grant characteristics. It does not explicitly state what the returned grant looks like, but the purpose strongly implies the output is a usable browser-opening grant, making the tool adequately callable.

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 schema describes 'label' as 'Label of the link' with 100% coverage, so the structured field already carries the parameter meaning. The tool description does not add extra context about the label's format, purpose within the grant, or available options, but the schema is sufficient on its own.

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 names a specific verb ('Generate'), a clear resource ('short-lived single-use owner grant'), and the exact purpose ('opening an authenticated preview in browser'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like revoke_link or protect_link without needing to inspect their definitions.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a short-lived, single-use, authenticated preview grant is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the siblings, so the agent is left to infer the selection boundary.

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