Create instant url

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, but the description goes further: provider scopes, locks and credit consumption apply, and it warns that only one submission is permitted, reinforcing that retries are not safe. This is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 clauses with the endpoint and confirmation requirement front-loaded, and no filler sentences. The phrasing is terse and jargon-heavy but every clause carries operational meaning.

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 destructive, non-idempotent creation tool this covers the key hazards (credits, locks, single-shot submission, mandatory confirmation) and relies on the rich schema for parameter and file semantics. No output schema exists, but the description needn't explain return values, so nothing critical 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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including confirm, payload vs payload_file exclusivity, and the 0600 secret file behavior. The description only echoes the confirmation requirement and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"POST /v5/instant_urls" restates the endpoint implied by the name rather than stating in plain terms that this creates an instant URL. The agent infers the action from the tool name plus the HTTP verb, and there is no differentiation from the sibling instant-url tools (get/update/delete/list_instant_urls).

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?

"Mandatory confirmation before provider execution; one submission only" gives a real precondition and a retry constraint, which implies usage context. However, it never says when to choose this versus the instant-url siblings or what state must exist before calling, so guidance is only implied.

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