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

With annotations marking this as destructive and non-idempotent, the description adds substantial context: the public address stops working immediately, visitors see the link was closed, the resume and file remain intact, and a later link gets a new address. It also returns 'no_link' and 'not_found' states, covering both side effects and error conditions.

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 four tightly written sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by covering effect, reversibility, alternative behavior, and return statuses.

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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the immediate effect, what is preserved, how to create a replacement link, and the two error/empty states an agent might encounter.

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?

There is one parameter, resume_id, and the embedded schema documents it as returned by list_resumes. The description itself does not add further parameter semantics, such as format or acquisition details, so it relies on the schema for invocation guidance.

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 verb and resource: close the open public link to a resume's PDF. It distinguishes the action from sibling tools such as share_resume_link, which creates a new link, and makes clear this is about revoking public access rather than deleting the resume.

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 names the alternative share_resume_link for creating a later link and explains the no_link condition for when there is nothing to close. It does not explicitly contrast with get_resume_link or get_resume_pdf_url, but the intended use is clear from the purpose.

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