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 covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: a revoked link remains visible but marked as turned off (soft revoke, not deletion). It omits ownership/permission requirements for revoking a portfolio's links and what happens with an invalid or already-revoked token.

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 short sentences with the primary action and the scope alternatives front-loaded. The trailing sentence about a revoked link's state is informative but slightly vague in phrasing ("shows that it was turned off").

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail isn't needed, and annotations cover the destruction/idempotency profile. The gap is that with zero required parameters the agent could invoke this with no arguments, and the description never says what that does or that one of the two must be chosen. Preconditions for revoking a portfolio's links are also unaddressed.

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 0% — the schema documents neither parameter at all — so the description must carry the load. It does explain that token identifies a single link from list_shares and that portfolio_id targets every link for that portfolio, which is meaningful. It does not state that the parameters are mutually exclusive alternatives, nor what the default null/null behavior is.

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 and resource ("Turn off one share link") plus the two scoping modes: by token or by portfolio_id. It also references the sibling list_shares as the source of tokens, which helps an agent distinguish revoking from listing. Not quite a 5 because it never says what a "share link" object is or how it relates to share_view.

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 clearly implies two usage modes — single link via token, all links via portfolio_id — which is real routing guidance. However it never states what to do when neither is supplied (both are optional with default null), nor which sibling to use to create or inspect links before revoking. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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