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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: the effect is immediate, existing holders lose access, prior conversations survive in the flow's history, and a needs_confirmation response may occur. That scoping of what is and is not destroyed is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the consequence of the call, then persistence behavior, then the id source. No filler and nothing buried.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive scope, the confirmation path, and where to obtain the required id. Only minor gaps remain, such as reversibility or idempotency of a revoke, which an agent might want to know.

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 flowId, shareId, workspace, and approvalId are already documented, including the approvalId tie-in to needs_confirmation. The description repeats the shareId source but adds no format, constraint, or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Kills one guest link immediately') and scopes it to a single link, which cleanly separates it from workbench_flows_shares_list and workbench_flows_share_create. 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?

It routes the agent to the prerequisite step by naming workbench_flows_shares_list as the source of shareId, which is genuine usage guidance. It does not, however, state any when-not-to-use condition or contrast with a sibling such as share_create, so it falls short of explicit alternative framing.

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