create_link

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

With only destructiveHint=false in the annotations, the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses public exposure, access logging, a per-day cap, the required shares:write scope, and that a call may return an already-existing link rather than create a new one. It stops short of explaining link lifetime/revocation or how the daily cap behaves when hit.

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-loaded with the core action and outcome in the first clause, then permissions and idempotency. The semicolon-heavy packing is dense but every fragment (embedding, logging, cap, scope) carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool whose main ambiguity is target selection (path vs node_id) and whose behavior is permanent public exposure, the description should say which parameter to use and how the link can later be revoked via revoke_link.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It mentions idempotency (mapping loosely to idempotency_key) but says nothing about path versus node_id, does not indicate whether they are alternatives or which one to supply, and all three are optional, leaving the agent unsure how to identify the target file.

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 (or return existing) a permanent public direct URL for one file, with the web page/Markdown embedding use case made concrete. It is clearly distinguishable from create_share, clip_url, and create_file_request, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied through examples ('usable in web pages and Markdown; images can be embedded directly'), which tells the agent what kind of link this is for. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of-create_share or create_file_request guidance, and no stated prerequisites beyond the permission scope.

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