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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: holders see the link as if it never existed, the action cannot be undone, and the correct recovery is to issue a fresh share. That irreversibility and remediation detail is exactly the surplus value annotations cannot convey. It stops short of stating error behavior or auth requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the effect and the irreversibility warning. The clause 'a secret that has been out of the building is issued again rather than brought back' is slightly mannered but still readable, and no sentence is filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect and the non-reversibility well. What it omits is the identity of the parameter and any hint of the response, leaving a modest but real gap against 0% schema coverage.

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?

There is one required parameter, share_id, and schema description coverage is 0% — the schema only supplies a UUID format and regex. The description never mentions the parameter at all, so an agent has no prose confirmation that it identifies the share to revoke or how to obtain such an ID.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'stops a link working' permanently, which precisely identifies the operation on a published share link. It does not name the related siblings (list_shares, share_document, revoke_invitation, revoke_api_key), but the 'link' framing sufficiently separates it from invitation and API-key revocation.

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 is only implied through the cautionary 'say so before calling it,' which signals this is a consequential, confirm-first action. There is no explicit guidance on when to revoke versus re-sharing or listing shares first, and no named alternative tool.

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