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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses immediate effect (URL stops resolving), idempotency (alreadyRevoked: true), role requirement, and feature gating. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent critical behavioral context for a mutating 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?

Three sentences efficiently pack the core action, effect, idempotency, and permissions without fluff. The action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds distinct value, making the description concise and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, effect, permissions, and idempotent edge case comprehensively. The only minor gap is the general success response, but the behavior in the already-revoked case is explicitly described, making the description sufficient for a simple revoke operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including the critical distinction between token_id and URL token. The main description adds only minor context (e.g., 'minted via share_file') and does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description clearly identifies the action (soft-revoke) and the resource (a share token minted via `share_file`), with a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `share_file` (minting) and `delete_file` (deleting the file) by focusing on token revocation.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: revoke a share token, with prerequisites (editor role, feature flag, allowlist) and idempotency noted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the specific scope of token revocation makes the intended use unambiguous.

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