Create shared link

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

The description adds concrete behavior beyond annotations: 'If a link already exists for the path, the existing link is returned instead of erroring.' This clarifies the idempotentHint and aligns with readOnlyHint=false. It does not discuss external side effects, but there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable behavioral context. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for basic invocation but leaves gaps: it does not state the return shape explicitly, nor whether audience/allow_download settings are updated when an existing link is returned. With no output schema, a bit more detail would make it complete.

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 67%, with allow_download lacking any description. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail; 'for a file or folder' merely restates the path schema. It should have explained allow_download or clarified audience behavior but does not.

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: 'Create a shareable link for a file or folder.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like dropbox_get_temporary_link and dropbox_list_shared_links, and the idempotency note adds important scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dropbox_get_temporary_link or dropbox_list_shared_links. The idempotency note implies it is safe to call even if a link exists, but it does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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