Share HTML privately

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that — AES-256-GCM local encryption, server stores only ciphertext and cannot read it, no account needed, expiry default of 30 days, and a dual return (public share link plus private edit link that must be retained). This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core action and encryption guarantee before the usage conditions, and every sentence contributes routing or behavioral information. Slightly long, with mild repetition of 'private'/'encrypted' phrasing, but not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing both returned links and what to do with the edit link. Combined with the encryption, expiration, and no-account details, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale beyond the schema: it explains the html-vs-path tradeoff (use path for large pages so the document need not fit in a tool argument) and explains the purpose of the returned edit link rather than just its existence. Only the expires enum semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource ('share a self-contained HTML file') plus scope ('private, end-to-end encrypted link'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_html for later changes. An agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (sensitive/confidential/client/legal/medical content, sharing outside the org, user asks for a private or encrypted link), a fallback ('when unsure, ask which the user prefers'), and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it: use update_html for changes to something already shared.

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