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

Annotations already mark this as a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the key effect the annotations cannot convey — 'the share's link no longer opens' — so the caller knows the visible outcome of the revocation, plus a 'confirm it' hint that the operation is verified rather than fire-and-forget.

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?

Three short sentences, effect and required argument front-loaded with no padding. Every sentence carries information an agent can act on.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the required input, its source, and the observable outcome. It leaves open error behavior for a stale or already-revoked share_id, which matters for an idempotent revoke.

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 parameter's schema description is essentially identical to the sentence in the tool description, so no additional parameter meaning is introduced. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Revoke a share of a run') and implicitly pairs it with the sibling playlist_share. The addendum 'and confirm it' muddies slightly whether confirmation is an action of this tool or an instruction to the caller, but the core purpose 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?

The definition ties the tool to the playlist_share workflow by telling the caller to supply the share_id that playlist_share returned, which gives useful implied usage context. It does not say when not to use it, what happens if the share_id is unknown, or whether it can be called repeatedly meaningfully.

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