create_share_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that opens are attributed to the label in the dashboard and read-receipt email, that the link bypasses the page passcode, and that it can be independently revoked. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond a generic 'create' statement.

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 three dense sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, behavioral consequences, and usage boundaries. The mail-merge alternative is also stated without extra explanation.

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?

The description is strong for the core use case and for distinguishing from alternatives, but it is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema. Three parameters remain semantically unexplained, and the return value of the tool is not described, leaving gaps an agent must infer.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It enriches the meaning of label (attribution and read receipts), but it does not explain id_or_slug, max_uses, or expires_in_hours at all, leaving major parameter semantics unresolved.

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 opens with the specific action 'Mint a share link addressed to one person,' clearly identifying the resource and its one-recipient scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like revoke_share_link and list_share_links by describing a creation workflow and explicitly contrasting with the mail-merge approach.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool for one share link per recipient after publish_html, and use the alternative '?to={{name}}' URL approach for a whole mail-merge. This directly tells the agent when to pick this tool over another method.

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