create_share

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

Beyond the single destructiveHint=false annotation, the description discloses the required auth scope and idempotency support, both of which materially affect how an agent should call it. It stops short of stating that omitting a password yields an openly public URL, or that expiry must be a future timestamp.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its key options, with the operational constraints appended. No wasted words.

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 no explanation, and auth plus idempotency are covered. The remaining gap is the path/node_id ambiguity and the public-by-default implication, which matter for correct invocation.

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% (just allow_upload), so the description must compensate. It only glosses password and expiry in passing and says nothing about path vs node_id (both optional per schema, which is itself ambiguous) or the format of expires_at/idempotency_key.

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 share URL') plus its two main optional dimensions (password, future expiry). However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling create_link, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a share-link creation tool.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Requires shares:write') but offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as create_link or list_shares. Usage context is only implied by the word 'public'.

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