Share Deck

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the access model ('anyone with the link can open the deck'), the idempotent behavior ('reuses the existing link so the URL is stable'), and the destructive consequence of rotate ('the previous URL stops working'). That last point concretely explains where the destructiveHint=true applies, which the annotation alone leaves ambiguous.

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 what the tool does, then the safety constraint, then the parameter behavior. No filler or restated title.

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?

Covers purpose, access implications, reuse semantics, and the destructive rotate path; an output schema exists so return-value detail need not be spelled out beyond the URL mention. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden: it fully defines rotate's semantics, default behavior, and side effect, which the bare boolean type could not convey. deck_id is left to the schema's uuid format and name, which is reasonable since its meaning is self-evident from the purpose sentence.

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+resource pair ('Get or create the deck's public share link') and the return value ('return the URL'). No sibling tool in the list does sharing, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from get_deck, patch_deck, or create_grant.

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?

Explicitly constrains usage: 'use it only when the user asks for a link or to share the deck,' which is a real exclusion rather than a vague hint. It also explains when to pass rotate=true. It does not name a competing tool, but none exists among the siblings, so the only gap is minor.

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