revoke_flyerTake down a flyer immediately: the link starts returning "gone" and the stored document is deleted. Needs the id and owner_token returned when it was published — there are no accounts, so that token is the only proof of ownership and it is not recoverable if lost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The flyer id, e.g. x7Kp2mQ. | |
| owner_token | Yes | The owner_token returned by publish_flyer. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds beyond these by stating the link returns 'gone', the document is deleted, and that the owner_token is non-recoverable. It fully discloses the irreversible nature and required credentials, with no contradiction.
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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the action and effect; the second covers prerequisites and caution. Every sentence is necessary and impactful, front-loaded with key information.
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 revocation tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers: what it does, side effects, required inputs (with origin), and a critical warning about token loss. It leaves no gaps for the agent.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the owner_token comes from publish_flyer and providing an example format for the id ('x7Kp2mQ'), which helps agents understand parameter origins 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Take down a flyer') and its immediate effect ('link starts returning gone, document deleted'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like publish_flyer and update_flyer by describing an irreversible revocation.
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?
The description explains when to use the tool (to permanently remove a flyer) and provides critical prerequisites: 'Needs the id and owner_token returned when it was published.' It also warns about token irrecoverability, implying not to use without the token. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action on flyers: publish creates, revoke deletes, update replaces content. Descriptions clearly differentiate them with no overlap, ensuring an agent can reliably select the correct tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: publish_flyer, revoke_flyer, update_flyer. The naming is predictable and uniform, aiding in quick understanding.
With 3 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose of publishing and managing individual flyers. While a few more tools (e.g., list or extend expiry) could be useful, the current count is not too few for the core functionality.
The tool set covers the essential lifecycle: create, read (implicitly via publish), update, and delete. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit retrieval of a flyer's metadata or ability to extend expiration without updating content, but the core workflow is complete.