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

Annotations declare destructive/idempotent, and the description adds genuinely new context: revocation is immediate, the old URL returns not-found, a subsequent share generates a new address that awaits confirmation, and no-op behavior on linkless dashboards. It also states the required Owner/Admin/Editor role and the return value, which annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded with the core action and effect, and every sentence carries information the agent could not infer. It is somewhat dense — six clauses in one paragraph — but nothing is 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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect timing, downstream consequences, re-share behavior, auth requirements, and the return shape. An agent has everything needed to call it and to explain the outcome.

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 100% and both parameters already document their provenance (fastero_list_projects / fastero_list_dashboards). The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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 a dashboard's public link') and adds the pending-confirmation variant, so the exact effect is unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from fastero_share_dashboard (creates a link) and fastero_get_dashboard_share_link (reads one).

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?

Explicitly frames the use case ('take access back from everyone holding the link') and names the alternative — re-sharing via fastero_share_dashboard creates a new link at a new address. It also covers the when-not case: a dashboard with no link is left unchanged.

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