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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the soft (non-destructive) semantics, the immediate external effect ('public `/share/files/<token>` URL stops resolving'), idempotent behavior with a concrete return signal ('alreadyRevoked: true without error'), and the authorization requirement ('Editor role required'). These are exactly the mutation-side facts an agent needs.

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?

Four compact sentences, each earning its place: the action, the observable effect, the idempotency contract, and the permission gate. The core operation is front-loaded and there is no 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 3-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (soft vs. hard, immediate URL effect, idempotency return shape, role requirement). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents slug, file_id, and token_id (including the useful 'NOT the token in the url' caveat). The description reinforces that the token comes from `share_file` but adds little parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Soft-revoke a share token') and anchors it to the producing tool ('minted via `share_file`'), which distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like share_file, revoke_api_key, and rotate_api_key. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Makes the trigger explicit: it operates on tokens created by `share_file`, and it names the required role ('Editor role required'). It gives clear context for when to reach for this tool but does not state exclusions or an alternative (e.g., when to prefer a hard delete or key rotation instead), so it falls short of a full 5.

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