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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the main behavioral outcome (becomes private, share link invalidated), but omits details like reversibility, permissions needed, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and packs essential information efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and outcome adequately. It lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or post-conditions, but the tool's simplicity means this isn't a major gap. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameter. It only says 'a verification' without specifying that verification_id is required or how to provide it. The schema gives the parameter name, but the description adds no semantic value for the parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('Disable sharing for a verification') and the effect ('making it private and invalidating its share link'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like share_verification and get_verification_share.

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 gives clear context: it's the inverse of sharing, to be used when you want to revoke access. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action itself implies when to use it, especially given the sibling share_verification.

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