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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is a revocation (a mutation), explains the scope limitation (only external shares), and warns that member grants are inherited and must be handled elsewhere. It could add more about side effects or reversibility, but the key behavioral constraints are disclosed.

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 no filler. The core action and the critical exclusion (member grants) are front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is woven in naturally. Every sentence 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, who it applies to, how to identify the target, and what it does NOT do. It could mention whether the operation is reversible or what the response looks like, but the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that 'email' must be exactly as who_can_read prints it, and that 'location' is a full path from the workspace root. This helps the agent use the parameters correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Take back a share') and resource ('a share given to somebody outside this organization'), and immediately distinguishes it from related operations by clarifying that member-held grants are not touched. It clearly differentiates from siblings like share_org_folder and who_can_read.

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 says when to use this tool (to revoke external shares) and when not to (for member-held grants, which should be changed in the console where the grant actually lives). It also tells the agent how to identify the target via who_can_read, providing clear routing guidance.

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