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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add effect detail, and it does: link holders lose access while the private menu remains in the account. That clarifies the scope of destruction (link only, not the menu), which annotations alone leave ambiguous. It does not discuss re-sharing or revocation latency, so it is not exhaustive.

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: trigger first, consequence second. No restated title, no filler, every sentence carries information an agent can act on.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with an output schema present, the definition covers trigger, blast radius, and what is preserved, which is close to sufficient. A note on whether the old link is permanently dead or the menu can be re-shared would close the remaining gap.

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% for the single menuId parameter, and the schema already says the public link should stop working. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action on a specific resource: stop sharing a menu / turn off its public link, against the sibling share_menu. An agent can distinguish it from share_menu and get_shared_menu from the wording alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a clear trigger condition (user asks to stop sharing or turn off the public link), which is the main routing signal among the share/get siblings. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. that deleting a menu or revoking an individual collaborator is a different tool.

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