tinyurl_analytics_sharing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious traits: it is a mutation via PATCH, it goes through the durable alias mutation barrier, it invalidates create receipts, and it requires a specific token permission. Missing only failure/idempotency behavior and the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, then preconditions and side effects. Nothing is repeated and nothing is padding.

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 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers endpoint, permissions, and side effects well. It omits error cases and whether repeated calls are idempotent, which would matter for retry logic.

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 67% and alias/domain are already documented inline, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds only 'Requires alias and public' and never explains the boolean's direction (public=true enables, false disables), which is the one semantic an agent could misread.

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?

States a specific verb pair (enable/disable) and resource (public analytics sharing) scoped to 'one exact TinyURL', plus the underlying endpoint. This clearly separates it from siblings like tinyurl_analytics_report, tinyurl_analytics_status, and the bulk variants without needing the schema.

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 'one exact TinyURL' phrasing and the required alias/public pair give a clear picture of when this applies, and the stated token permission (Update TinyURL or Analytics settings) is a usable precondition. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating what to do when the alias doesn't exist.

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