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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it clarifies that repeated requests succeed (reinforcing idempotentHint with concrete semantics), that page content is preserved despite destructiveHint=true, and that revocation is permission-gated. This is exactly the kind of auth/reversibility context an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation.

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: purpose, authorization, idempotency/content preservation, and a scope guardrail. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the remaining gaps for a single-parameter destructive mutation: who may call it, repeat behavior, and that page content survives. Nothing needed to call 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for sharedPreviewId, so the description must compensate; it does by stating the id comes from create_shared_preview, giving the parameter provenance and meaning the bare UUID pattern/format does not.

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 (Disable) on a specific resource (public shared preview link) and names the sibling that creates it (create_shared_preview). An agent can distinguish this from create_shared_preview or delete_site_page without opening any 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?

Explicitly states the authorization condition for use (creator with current project access or workspace admin) and adds an operating constraint ('Revoke only the link the user requested'). It gives clear context but does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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