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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: revocation takes effect immediately and already-distributed links stop working on the next download. It doesn't say whether the action is reversible or what happens to share metadata, but the immediacy detail is valuable beyond annotations.

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 consequence, then the precondition. Nothing is padded. The phrasing 'fails too' is slightly informal but does not cost comprehension.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers action, immediate effect on links, and a confirmation requirement. Remaining gaps (reversibility, error behavior when already revoked) are minor given idempotentHint covers re-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 coverage is 100% and the single shareId parameter is already documented in-schema with its source (files_share or files_get). The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'End a file share at once'. The effect clause ('the next download through an old link fails too') makes the outcome concrete. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g., files_share as the inverse), but 'file share' plus 'end' is distinguishable from the other files_* tools.

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?

Provides one real precondition: 'Confirm with your owner first.' That is useful usage guidance, but there is no statement of when to prefer revocation over other options or what situations should not use it. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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