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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful scope with 'tenant-owned transcript' and 'active public share link', plus a hint that confirmation is required, but it does not explain failure behavior or the effect on recipients.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and scope immediately, and the trailing phrase about a durable confirmed operation remains relevant.

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?

The tool is a destructive mutation with required confirm and idempotency parameters, but annotations and the output schema carry substantial context. The description is minimally adequate, though it omits parameter-specific guidance and edge-case behavior for an operation that revokes a public link.

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 0% across three required parameters. The description indirectly hints at the transcript being affected and a confirmed operation, but it does not explain the idempotencyKey or the meaning of transcriptionId beyond 'one transcript', leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb, 'Revokes', and a specific resource, 'the active public share link for one tenant-owned transcript'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling create_share_link and from unrelated transcript operations.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'active public share link', which suggests the tool applies when such a link exists. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool, when not to use it, or name alternatives.

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