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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: holders receive 403, visibility settings do not stop these links, revocation is irreversible with no restore tool, and only that one link is affected while the URL and other legacy links keep working.

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?

Front-loaded with the effect and the use case, then prerequisites, irreversibility, and the alternative. It is fairly long, but nearly every sentence delivers actionable information rather than filler.

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?

Covers what the tool does, when to use it, how visibility interacts, that it is irreversible, its blast radius, where to get the id, and the alternative tool. No output schema is needed for a revoke action, and nothing an agent requires to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single link_id param is already documented as coming from list_proposals. The description adds only the marginal note that link_id is available nowhere else on this surface, so the schema still carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb (revoke) and resource (one legacy per-recipient link) with immediate effect (holders get 403). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling revoke tools (revoke_api_token, revoke_invite, revoke_versions) and from reset_default_link, which it explicitly names.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (a link reached the wrong person or was forwarded somewhere it should not go), a named alternative with its selecting condition ('To replace the URL instead, use reset_default_link'), a sourcing prerequisite (get link_id from list_proposals), and an interaction guard ('Confirm which link with the user first').

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