invoices_share_links_create

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write with local scope, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the return payload (URL, token, expiry) and, most importantly, that the link grants unauthenticated viewing — a security-relevant trait an agent should register. It omits that repeated calls create duplicate links and that revocation is handled elsewhere.

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, then the return shape, then the recipient-facing effect. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned URL, token, and expiry. The main omissions are the lack of guidance on permission requirements and the absence of a pointer to invoices_share_links_revoke for lifecycle management.

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 100%, so uuid, companyId, and expiryDays are already documented with defaults; baseline is 3. The description mentions an expiry date in the return value but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Create a new shareable link for an invoice') and describes the effect on the recipient. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling invoices_share_links_list and invoices_share_links_revoke, but the create/list/revoke split is obvious from the name.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool to make a link versus list or revoke existing ones. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no note on when to reuse an existing link instead of creating a new one, and no preconditions mentioned.

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