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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context with '(stops working within seconds)', telling the agent that revocation propagates with a short delay rather than being instantaneous — useful for verifying outcomes.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the timing caveat in parentheses. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 destructive, one-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the propagation delay but omits what happens on an invalid/already-revoked share_id, whether project_id is required when a session is active, and what a successful response contains.

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 only 50%, and the undocumented parameter is the required one: share_id has no schema description and the description says nothing about its format or how to obtain it. Only project_id carries any explanation, and that comes from the schema, not the description.

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: 'Revoke a preview share link'. The verb 'revoke' naturally distinguishes it from create_share_link and list_share_links, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 — an agent infers it should call this to undo a share link. There is no guidance on prerequisites (obtaining a share_id, e.g. via list_share_links) or when an alternative would apply, so it stays at minimum-viable.

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