invoices_share_links_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the link allows unauthenticated viewing and returns the share URL/token/expiry, which is somewhat informative. However, it doesn't disclose whether creation requires special permissions, whether links are revocable (though a revoke sibling exists), what the default expiry behavior means, or the security implications of creating an unauthenticated access link.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The description is efficiently front-loaded with the primary action ('Create a new shareable link for an invoice') followed by return values and link behavior. 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 create operation with good schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. However, it lacks behavioral nuance about security implications of unauthenticated access links, permission requirements, or reversibility considerations. Given the tool's security-relevant nature (creating public access to a financial document), a bit more context would strengthen it. No output schema means the description's statement about returns helps, which it does cover.

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 100%, so all 3 parameters (uuid, companyId, expiryDays) are documented in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying the purpose (returns share URL, token, expiry date) but doesn't elaborate on parameter specifics beyond what the schema provides. The description does confirm the expiryDays defaults to 30, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (Create) and resource (shareable link for an invoice). It specifies what the link allows (viewing without authentication) and mentions the return values. It distinguishes from sibling tools like invoices_share_links_list and invoices_share_links_revoke through the 'Create' verb, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 explains what the link does but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are related sibling tools (invoices_share_links_list, invoices_share_links_revoke) but no explicit comparison or when-not-to-use guidance. The auth-free viewing behavior is implied but no context on when sharing is appropriate vs sending email (invoices_email) is given.

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