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

The annotations already declare this as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the share ends immediately and where the id comes from, but it does not describe permissions, reversibility, or what the result looks like.

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 text. It communicates the action and the parameter source efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already cover safety and whose schema is minimal, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly. It identifies the id source and the immediate effect, though it could say more about what happens to the recipient's access.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying the id comes from `doc_shares` adds useful meaning beyond the schema's bare string type, though it still does not specify the id format or whether the share must be active.

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 action (ending one share) and ties it to the `doc_shares` sibling as the source of the share id. It is clear enough to distinguish from listing shares, though the phrasing 'End one share at once' is slightly colloquial rather than explicitly saying 'revoke a document share'.

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?

It implies usage by saying the id comes from `doc_shares`, which helps the agent know where to obtain the required parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of `doc_share`, `doc_write`, or other share-related tools.

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