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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them: the 204 response code, the edit-access requirement, and the required API-key scope. It doesn't address what happens when the page has no active share, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded, followed by effect, then preconditions and scope. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, consequence, auth requirement, scope, and response code, and annotations carry the safety profile. Only the no-op/already-disabled case is left unstated.

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 100%, so spaceKey, slug, account, and workspace are fully documented in the schema. The description only implies the page is identified by space+slug and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Disable the public share link for a single page') plus the consequence ('revoking access via its URL'). It is trivially distinguishable from wiki_enable_page_share, wiki_get_page_share, and wiki_check_public_slug.

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 precondition ('Requires edit access') and the effect, which is enough context to decide to call it. It doesn't explicitly name the counterpart tool to re-enable sharing or say what to do if no share exists, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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