Create viewer grant

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses single-use behavior, a two-minute validity window, the Pro plan requirement, and that the returned value is a bypass URL. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result, with every sentence adding either a constraint, a use case, or validity details. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, output type, constraints, validity, and exclusions. The only minimal gap is exact response formatting, which is not necessary for correct invocation.

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% for the single label parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the link context, which fits the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: create a single-use owner-browser bypass grant and return a bypass URL. It further differentiates the tool from a general viewer-sharing credential, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools without opening schemas.

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 an explicit use case: open a protected link in the browser without sharing the viewer credential. It also states a clear when-not boundary: not a general viewer-sharing credential, which routes agents away from misuse even without naming a sibling.

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