mdshare

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that admin credentials are stored locally and not returned, describes performance implications (file_path is 'dramatically faster' for large files), and specifies the default permission level. Annotations cover basic safety (non-destructive, non-idempotent), but the description enhances this with practical details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action and outcome, the second explains link permissions and admin credential handling, and the third provides performance guidance. No wasted sentences, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 complexity (upload with performance considerations) and lack of output schema, the description does well to explain the response content (share link details) and behavioral nuances. It covers key aspects like credential storage, performance trade-offs, and sibling tool relationships, though it doesn't detail error cases or exact response format.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the file_path vs content preference and mentions the default share_permission, but adds minimal new semantic information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('upload markdown to mdshare') and the outcome ('receive a shareable link'), distinguishing it from siblings like generate_link or list_links by focusing on file/content upload rather than link generation or listing. It explicitly mentions the resource (markdown) and the platform (mdshare).

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 vs alternatives: it directs to 'call get_admin_url' if the user asks for admin URLs, and distinguishes from siblings by its upload function. It also includes clear parameter usage rules (PREFER file_path over content for files on disk).

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