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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral value beyond that: immediate effect ("anyone holding it gets a closed page from then on"), what is preserved ("Conversations already had stay in the flow's history"), and the two-step confirmation flow ("May return needs_confirmation") tied to the approvalId parameter.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the destructive effect front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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, no-output-schema action, the definition covers effect, data preservation, id source, and confirmation behavior. It is essentially complete for correct invocation, though it doesn't touch permission/auth requirements beyond what the workspace param implies.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description restates the shareId source (already in the schema) and only implicitly touches approvalId via the needs_confirmation note, adding little beyond the structured fields. 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?

"Kills one guest link immediately" gives a specific verb (revoke) and a precisely scoped resource (a single guest share link), and the description clearly separates this from workbench_flows_shares_list and workbench_flows_share_create. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a 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?

It directs the caller to obtain shareId from workbench_flows_shares_list and notes the confirmation path, giving clear context for invocation. It doesn't state when NOT to use this or name alternatives, so it falls short of 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.