create_share_link

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the link is public and read-only, freezes data at creation time, and expires after the given number of days, plus the confirm_action approval gate. Missing details on how the preview state is later applied, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste; the PREVIEW ONLY warning and confirm_action gate are front-loaded, and each clause adds a distinct constraint.

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?

For a creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, lifecycle (freeze/expiry), and the required approval step. It leaves the return value and how the preview is committed somewhat implicit, but the confirm_action routing compensates well.

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 75% and already documents 'days' and 'country'. The description reinforces that 'days' controls expiry but adds no format or syntax detail for 'days' (e.g. 1-30 range), 'appId', or 'password' beyond 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 ('create a public, read-only link to one app's dashboard for one storefront') and adds distinguishing scope ('PREVIEW ONLY', single app, single storefront). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like export_data or confirm_action without inspecting schemas.

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?

Clearly signals the workflow: this is a preview and must be 'Apply with confirm_action after the user approves', naming the exact sibling to route to and the approval precondition. It doesn't cover explicit when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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