Protect link

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, but the description adds concrete behavioral detail: it returns a share URL and secret, and it replaces existing credentials if the link is already protected. This is valuable side-effect disclosure beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action and return values are front-loaded, and the important caveat about replacing credentials is stated concisely at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential return information and the key side-effect caveat. It does not cover error conditions or permission requirements, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining structural details adequately.

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 input schema covers both optional parameters fully: ttl has examples and label has a default behavior. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but with 100% schema coverage the schema already carries the load. 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 action ('Enable... protection'), the target ('an owned link'), and the distinctive outputs (share URL with #cap=... and human-readable secret code). It also differentiates behavior on an already-protected link, which helps distinguish it from a simple first-time protect call.

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 gives clear context for when it applies: enabling capability-token and readable-secret protection on an owned link. It also notes the re-protection case, which tells the agent the operation still makes sense on an already-protected link. It does not explicitly name alternatives like unprotect_link or renew_link, but the intent is clear.

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