mdshare

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the tool verifies URLs against the live API, stores them in a specific file path (~/.mdshare-mcp/documents.json), and rejects non-admin URLs. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent, so the description doesn't need to repeat those safety aspects. 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 efficiently structured with two sentences: the first states the core purpose and process, and the second provides important constraints and bulk usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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 (persistent storage, API verification), the description covers the essential behavior, constraints, and usage context well. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure status, stored metadata), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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?

The description provides the parameter format ('admin URL of the form https://mdshare.live/d/{id}?key=adm_...') and validation rules ('Only accepts admin URLs — view/comment/edit share links will be rejected'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's basic description. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and this extra context justifies maintaining that score rather than elevating it significantly.

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 ('register'), resource ('mdshare admin URL'), and purpose ('so it can be resumed without re-pasting the key every time'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it's for registering existing URLs rather than generating new ones (like generate_link) or retrieving them (like get_admin_url).

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('Register an mdshare admin URL you already have saved') and when not to ('Only accepts admin URLs — view/comment/edit share links will be rejected'). It also names an alternative approach for bulk operations ('use the LLM's built-in file reading and search tools... then call this tool once per URL'), though it doesn't explicitly mention sibling tools as alternatives.

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