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

The description explicitly discloses that sharing is disabled, privacy is restored, and the share link becomes invalid, which aligns with and enriches the destructiveHint annotation. It does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., whether already-fetched data remains accessible), but for a single-parameter unshare operation the stated side effects are sufficiently transparent.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that directly states the action and its consequences without any filler or redundant phrasing. It is well-structured and immediately scannable for an agent selecting a tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity—one required parameter, a clear action, and an output schema that does not need explanation—the description provides all necessary context for correct invocation. An agent can confidently call this tool based on the stated behavior alone.

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?

The schema provides complete coverage for the single parameter, including its type, title, and a description that explains the expected UUID format and lists example source tools. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what is already in the schema, so the parameter semantics meet the baseline without enhancement.

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 uses a specific verb ('Disable sharing') and clearly states the resource ('a verification') and the two resulting effects: making it private and invalidating its share link. This directly distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'share_verification' and leaves no ambiguity about its primary function.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool—whenever a previously shared verification needs to be unshared and its link invalidated. It lacks an explicit 'Use this tool when...' or a direct contrast with alternatives, but the action and consequence are so unambiguous that an agent can reliably infer the appropriate usage context.

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