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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the client can no longer open the document, the document itself is unchanged, and without confirm=true the result is only a preview. It does not contradict annotations and meaningfully clarifies the destructive effect.

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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the main effect, then the key caveat that the document is unchanged, then the confirm requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains the action, its effect, and the confirm-preview behavior. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning authentication or rate limits, but for a simple two-parameter tool it covers what an agent needs.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the confirm behavior already documented in the schema and adds no additional meaning to invoiceId beyond what the schema 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 states a specific effect: it turns a document's public link off so the client can no longer open it, and clarifies the document itself is unchanged. This distinguishes it from deletion tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like regenerate_invoice_link or revoke_access.

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 gives clear context for the confirm parameter (true performs the action, otherwise a preview), but does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as regenerate_invoice_link or set_public_link. Usage is implied by the purpose but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are named.

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