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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it revokes credentials while keeping owner access intact, it makes the old URL stop working, and it prevents new credentials from being minted. It also clarifies the link remains protected. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: the core action, the consequence, and the alternatives. Front-loaded with the critical revoke action, no filler or 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?

For a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, its effects, and how it relates to siblings. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single required parameter, and the schema description ('Label of the link whose credentials should be revoked.') is already clear. The description does not add extra parameter meaning, but with full schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: immediately revoke the active secret code and capability token. It names the specific resource (link credentials) and the effect (old share URL stops working). It also distinguishes itself from renew_link and unprotect_link by naming them explicitly.

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 provides direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance by stating alternatives: 'To rotate credentials instead, use renew_link; to open the link to everyone, use unprotect_link.' This leaves no ambiguity about which tool to select for related but different intents.

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