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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description says "Preview", creating unresolved tension about whether anything is actually mutated, whether the operation is reversible, or whether a separate confirm step is required. With annotations covering the safety flags, the description should have explained the preview/confirm mechanics rather than leaving them to inference.

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 sentence with the key concept front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for what it says, though the size comes at the cost of substance rather than being a model of efficiency.

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-flagged mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description omits nearly everything an agent needs: what a preview returns, whether the revoke takes effect immediately, and what must follow. The gaps are too large for the operation's risk level.

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% for the single parameter, and the description never mentions shareId or where the agent obtains it. Only the UUID format in the schema gives any hint, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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-plus-resource ("revoking an existing share") and adds a qualifier ("Preview"), so the agent knows it concerns share revocation. However, "preview" is ambiguous: it is unclear whether the share is actually revoked or a dry-run result is returned. It also does not clearly separate this from related siblings such as resource_delete or the cancel_action/confirm_action pair.

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 statement of when to use this versus resource_change_visibility, resource_delete, or resource_share_grant, and no mention of prerequisites or the follow-up confirmation step that the sibling names (cancel_action/confirm_action) imply. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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