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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: revocation takes effect immediately and connected parties lose read access at once. It does not say whether the code is deleted or merely disabled, nor whether the action can be undone, which is the remaining gap for a destructive operation.

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 with no filler: the core action and its immediate consequence come first, with the id provenance tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is repeated from the annotations and nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the effect scope and timing of revocation. The only missing piece is post-revocation state of the code itself, a minor gap rather than a blocker to 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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented. The description still adds provenance beyond the schema by explaining that the id is a share code visible in list_brains with shares: true, which tells the agent how to source a valid value rather than guessing.

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: it revokes ('corta') a share code, and immediately clarifies the object by pointing to where the id is surfaced (list_brains with shares: true). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling share_brain, which does the opposite operation.

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 actionable context on how to obtain the required id (list_brains filtered by shares: true), which effectively tells the agent when this tool applies — when an existing share needs revoking. It stops short of explicitly naming share_brain as the alternative or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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