mdshare

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the admin access requirement (not covered by annotations) and clarifies conditional parameter behavior for 'key'. Annotations indicate it's non-readOnly, non-destructive, and non-idempotent, but the description supplements this with practical usage constraints. No contradiction with annotations 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?

The description is highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial usage details (admin access and key optionality). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, access requirements, and key parameter nuance. However, it doesn't specify what the generated link looks like or potential error conditions (e.g., invalid document_id), leaving minor gaps. Annotations help by indicating non-destructive 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the conditional optionality of 'key' ('optional if the document is in this MCP server's local store'), which isn't in the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on other parameters like 'permission' or 'label' beyond what the schema provides, keeping it slightly above baseline.

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 specific action ('generate a share link') and resource ('for a document'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_links' (which lists existing links) or 'revoke_link' (which removes links). It specifies the purpose is to create a link with permissions, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it states 'Requires admin access' as a prerequisite and clarifies when the 'key' parameter is optional ('if the document is in this MCP server's local store'). This helps differentiate it from tools like 'get_admin_url' or 'read_document' by specifying access requirements and conditional parameter usage.

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