Create the client page link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description usefully adds that replace:true invalidates the previous link, which is real destructive context. However it never states that a call without replace may still create a link when none exists, nor how expires_at interacts with an existing 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?

Two tight sentences, with the default behavior stated first and the mutation case second. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description gives only a partial picture of the return value ('the current link') without saying what happens when no link exists and replace is false. For a three-parameter mutation tool it should cover the not-found path and expiry behavior.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly, including the replace semantics. The description merely restates the replace behavior and says nothing about expires_at or the required project_id format, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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 names the resource precisely (the project's client page link) and explains the get-or-create behavior plus the replace flag. It is clear what the call returns, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling get_share_link, and the verb 'Gives' sits awkwardly against the name/title 'create'.

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 'replace: true' clause hints at the regenerate case, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of get_share_link or delete_share_link. An agent must infer the routing decision from the flag semantics alone.

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