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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the required write scopes, the two-call confirmation protocol, that the first call mutates nothing, that unknown fields are refused by name, and what the first call returns (summary and confirm_token). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loads the action and permissions, then walks the two-call flow in order with no filler. The parenthetical about refused fields is dense but earns its place by clarifying validation behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape for the first call (summary plus confirm_token) and the full interaction protocol, plus permission requirements for a destructive operation. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 50%, with link_id undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates by explaining the confirm_token lifecycle (omit on first call, echo the returned token on the second with identical arguments). link_id's meaning remains implicit as the link being revoked.

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 ('Revoke a link I made'), so the agent knows the exact operation. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as cancel_paylink or release_dj_link, so the agent must infer which link-revocation tool applies.

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 explicit procedural guidance: call once to validate and obtain a confirm_token, show the summary to the person, then call again with the same arguments plus confirm_token only after agreement. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over sibling link tools, but the when-to-call sequencing is unusually clear.

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