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

The description says 'preview revoking', which implies a non-mutating read, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. An agent following the description would treat this as a safe dry-run; the annotations say it destroys state. With no output schema and no clarification, this is a direct conflict rather than an addition.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, so it is not bloated. But for a destructive, one-parameter tool, one ambiguous sentence is under-specified rather than efficiently concise; the brevity comes at the cost of the information the agent needs.

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 operation with full annotation coverage on the danger axis, no output schema, and an undocumented lone parameter, the description should at minimum resolve the preview-versus-execute ambiguity and say what gets removed. It does neither, so the agent is left unable to call this correctly or safely.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it does not. It never explains what shareId refers to, where an agent obtains it, or whether it is the share identifier versus the resource identifier. Only the schema's uuid format/pattern gives the agent any structural cue, leaving the semantic gap unfilled.

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 names a verb ('revoking') and a resource ('an existing share'), so the general target is identifiable. However, the operative verb is actually 'preview', which muddles whether this tool mutates state or only simulates it, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like geobble_resource_share_grant, geobble_resource_delete, or the confirm_action/cancel_action pair. An agent cannot confidently tell what this tool does from the name and description alone.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus geobble_resource_share_grant, geobble_resource_delete, or geobble_confirm_action. If a preview/confirm two-phase flow exists, the description never says so, nor does it state prerequisites such as ownership or admin rights over the share.

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