wirk_show

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

The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: link-based open access, a 24-hour expiry, and that a link is returned. However, it omits that the tool mutates state (annotations correctly say readOnlyHint=false, which the wording 'read-only page' could mislead a reader into overlooking), and it does not explain what revoke does or whether anyone with the link can re-share.

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 tight sentences with the most decision-relevant facts (link return, expiry) front-loaded and no filler. Slight cost: cramming 'preset status or a view config' into one clause makes the input options harder to parse than a short list would.

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 does usefully say a link is returned, so the return side is covered. Against 6 mostly-undocumented parameters and an undocumented revoke path, though, an agent still lacks enough to call this correctly in all but the simplest preset case.

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 only 17% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at 'preset' and 'view config' (blocks) but says nothing about title, format, workspace_id, or the operationally significant revoke string — the one parameter an agent most needs explained.

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 conveys that a live shareable page for a person is produced and its link returned, which is a clear enough resource+outcome. But it never states the action verb (create/share), and the phrase 'live read-only page' describes the artifact rather than the operation, leaving ambiguity about whether this publishes or merely reads. Sibling differentiation is only implicit via 'preset status', which brushes against wirk_status without clarifying the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over wirk_status, wirk_query, or wirk_write, nor any prerequisites (workspace scoping, creation vs. revocation). The revoke parameter is never acknowledged, so an agent gets no routing signal for the teardown path.

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