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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope details beyond that: old links resolve to nothing, but copies already saved by users persist — clarifying the limits of the destructive effect.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequence second. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence's two clauses could be trimmed slightly.

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 one-parameter destruct tool with annotations and a fully described schema, the description covers action and effect adequately. Missing only minor edge-case behavior such as idempotency or the result when the doc has no public link.

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 the single doc_id parameter is documented with its source (get_task or list_space). The description adds only the doc types accepted ('doc, presentation or storyboard'), which is marginal value over 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?

States a specific verb ('Turn off') and resource ('the public link of a doc, presentation or storyboard'), and implicitly separates itself from the sibling share_link by describing the inverse operation. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is the counterpart to share_link. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, no prerequisite (e.g. requires owner/admin), and no mention of what happens if no link exists.

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