Create Review Bundle

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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, so the description goes beyond them usefully: it discloses the required permission scopes, the delegation authorization behavior, the confirm=true requirement, and that it 'may share access, notify people or incur provider charges.' That is meaningful side-effect and auth context. It stops short of describing what happens on partial failure or duplicate bundles.

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?

Purpose and constraints are front-loaded in a tight opening paragraph, followed by limits and then the permission/confirm block. Most sentences earn their place; the multi-line permissions boilerplate is somewhat lengthy but is genuinely decision-relevant for a mutating tool.

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 complex nested-schema mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input constraints, permission/scope requirements, the confirm gate, and side effects. It even hints at the return artifact (a shareable link), so an agent has everything needed to call it safely and correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real constraints not in the schema: media 'must already belong to the account' and 'can come from any folder.' The 25-media cap and name/media_hashed_ids fields are largely restated from the schema, so it nudges above baseline rather than being fully additive.

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+resource ('Creates a review bundle') plus the output ('a single link that can be shared for review'), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. The scope constraints (existing media, hashed IDs, 25 limit) sharpen it further. It does not, however, name the sibling tools (list_review_bundles / delete_review_bundle) to disambiguate the CRUD role, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Gives prerequisites ('media ... must already belong to the account', 'can come from any folder') and a hard limit (25 media), which implies when it is applicable. But it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as create_share_link or the other review-bundle tools; usage is only implied.

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