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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that: it confirms the revocation is permanent and that re-sharing produces a different URL, which tells the agent the old token is dead and any distributed link breaks.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the parenthetical carrying the consequence. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 destructive tool whose annotations already cover safety, the missing pieces are the token's identity (share link token vs. any other id) and what happens on an invalid or already-revoked token. The permanence note covers the most important behavioral question, but the parameter gap leaves the definition thin.

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% — the single 'token' parameter is documented only by a regex pattern, with no plain-language meaning in either the schema or the description. The description never mentions the token at all, so the agent gets no help on what identifier to supply or where to obtain it.

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 ('Turns a public link off'), which unambiguously identifies the operation and contrasts with create_share_link / list_share_links in the sibling set. It stops short of naming the object passed in (a share token), but the action itself is unmistakable.

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 guidance on when to revoke versus when to use list_share_links to find the token, or create_share_link to reissue a link. The requirement that the URL must be re-created rather than re-enabled is stated as a fact, not as a decision rule for the agent.

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