Create share link

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

The description meaningfully extends the annotations by disclosing that the link is public, unauthenticated, readable by anyone holding it, and temporary unless expiration is null. This is valuable context beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and is consistent with annotations; no contradiction exists.

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, well-organized sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by security/access implications and then user-facing usage requirements. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant detail.

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 low-complexity creation tool, the description covers the essential behavior, access model, and user-consent requirement. However, with no output schema, it doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns, such as the generated URL, which would be useful for an agent handling the response.

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 only 33%, and the description doesn't compensate. It clarifies expiation behavior broadly, but doesn't add meaning for the required 'document' parameter or 'file_version'. The schema already documents expiration, so the description adds little beyond what structured data provides.

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 action: creating a public, unauthenticated URL for a document, and explains its core behavior. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling create_share_link_bundle, but the singular 'document' focus and access semantics make the purpose clear.

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?

It provides concrete operational guidance: always confirm with the user first and set an expiration unless a permanent link is explicitly requested. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use this tool vs create_share_link_bundle, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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