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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: subsequent visits resolve to the same 'unknown link' page, and the change cannot be undone by re-enabling the old URL. It does not address permissions or whether other users' cached views persist.

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, action first, consequences second, irreversibility last. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece: what revocation does to existing links and that it is permanent. The only gap is guidance on discovering the id via joiva_list_shares, which is minor given the trivial schema.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents shareId fully including its UUID format. The phrase 'by its id' confirms the identifier role but adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke a Joiva share link by its id.' An agent knows exactly what entity is being acted on. It stops short of naming the sibling creation tools (joiva_share_day / joiva_share_meal) or joiva_list_shares as the source of the id, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

'Immediate and final: a new link is a new URL' tells the agent the action is irreversible and that restoring access means creating a fresh link, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not say where to obtain the shareId (e.g. joiva_list_shares) or warn against calling it on already-revoked ids.

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