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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description still adds genuinely new behavior: an authorization requirement, the explicit user-approval gate, and the crucial caveat that already-downloaded copies persist with recipients. The retry guidance directly addresses the non-idempotent hazard that the annotation only encodes numerically.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct operator-relevant fact: action, approval gate, access requirement, residual risk, and retry protocol. The action and its precondition are front-loaded with zero 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with three fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description covers authorization, approval, irreversibility limits, and error recovery. The only gap is that with no output schema present, it says nothing about what a successful revocation returns or how to verify it.

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 all three parameters (id, shareId, approved) are documented with formats and constraints, so the schema carries the load. The description reinforces the meaning of `approved` by making approval a procedural precondition, but adds no syntax or identifier detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Revoke an external link"), which unambiguously separates it from the sibling creation tool clm_create_contract_share. It implicitly points at clm_list_contract_shares via "list active links," but never names a sibling tool outright, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 states the gating condition ("after explicit user approval") and the prerequisite ("Requires contract manage access"), plus a recovery path when outcome is unknown. It does not say when to prefer this versus re-issuing a share or how to confirm success, so context is clear but not exhaustive.

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