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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the link stops opening immediately, the address is kept, and it can be reopened later. This clarifies the reversible nature beyond what annotations convey, though it doesn't explicitly mention idempotency (already covered by annotations).

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded ('Stop sharing.'), followed by a concise behavioral explanation and a clear alternative. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers the effect, the retention behavior, and the alternative. Nothing critical for calling the tool 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 only parameter, trip_id, has a minimal schema description ('must not be empty') and the tool description does not add any further semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the parameter is self-explanatory from its name and context.

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 clearly states the action (stop sharing) and the resource (share link). It distinguishes from the rotate alternative, so an agent can immediately understand what this tool does versus the sibling tool for rotating links.

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?

The description explicitly gives the condition for using an alternative: 'To make the old address permanently useless instead, rotate it.' This tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and points to the correct alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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