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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint, so the description adds real value: the temporal constraint ('before they expire'), the ownership scope ('Only your own links'), and the return shape ('how many were revoked'). It stops short of stating irreversibility or error behavior when nothing is open.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action, then the selection rule, then the scope and return value. No filler; every clause carries information.

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, but the description compensates by stating the return ('how many were revoked'), and all three params are documented. It leaves open whether revocation is permanent and what happens on an expired or already-revoked 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description contributes a semantic the schema lacks: the three parameters are mutually exclusive ('pass exactly one of'). That constraint is essential for correct invocation and is nowhere in the schema, which marks all params optional.

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+resource ('Stop download links') and ties the resource back to its sibling tool that produces them ('get_slack_message_with_files'). An agent can immediately tell this is the inverse operation of fetching message files, not a read or a listing.

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?

Gives the selection rule across the three mutually exclusive modes and adds a scope constraint ('Only your own links'). It doesn't state when revocation is unnecessary or what happens if a link already expired, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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