Resolve share link

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the exact required permission set, delegation behavior for `all:delegate_to_contact_permissions` tokens, and the notable trait that superseded slugs still resolve.

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?

The opening sentence is front-loaded with the essential mechanics and there is little filler. The permission block is boilerplate but useful, and the trailing 'Read-only account operation.' merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the share link and the pointed-to media plus its hashed ID. Combined with explicit auth/permission requirements, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; a note on error/not-found behavior would complete it.

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 both parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds minor meaning by framing `identifier` as the URL segment and enumerating its two accepted forms, but does not go beyond that.

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 (resolves) and resource (a share link URL segment), and precisely defines the input as the part after `/s/` plus what it returns (the link and the media, including its hashed ID). It never differentiates itself from close siblings like get_share_link or resolve_resource_urls, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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 implied rather than stated: it says the identifier can be a hashed ID or custom slug and that historical slugs still resolve, which helps an agent know this tool accepts things get_share_link may not. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or a named alternative, so it remains minimum-viable.

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