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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/irreversibility signal is carried by structured data. The description does add real context by scoping the destructive effect to the share link itself rather than the underlying results or list. It does not say whether revocation is reversible, whether previously exported/shared artifacts survive, or what confirmation the caller needs, so it stays at 3.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a one-parameter tool. The phrasing 'or to a list' is slightly compressed and could be sharper, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple one-param destructive tool the description covers the basic purpose, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Missing is how to obtain a share_id, what happens to already-shared recipients' access, and what the call returns, which leaves the definition only minimally adequate.

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 0% and the single share_id parameter has no documentation in the schema beyond a type and minLength. The description does not say where a share_id comes from (e.g., returned by share_find/share_collection) or what form it takes, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'turns off a shared link to a run's results or to a list'. An agent can tell this is the share-revocation tool rather than a share-creation tool like share_find or share_collection. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling revoke_spec_link, so a 4 rather than 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the other revoke/share siblings, and no prerequisites such as whether the caller must own the share or be a project admin. The only implied guidance is that a share_id must already exist, which the agent must infer.

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