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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation is bulk ('every public share link') and effect is immediate for recipients, so links already distributed break at once. It stops short of saying whether revocation is reversible or whether auth/ownership of the mortgage is required.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The scope is front-loaded in sentence one and the consequence follows immediately in sentence two.

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 with no output schema, this covers the essentials: what is destroyed and how fast. The main omission is whether revocation can be undone or links re-created, which would matter to an agent weighing side effects.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents mortgageId and even points at list_mortgages as the source. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (revokes) and resource scope (every public share link of a mortgage's dashboard), which is precisely distinguishable from the sibling create_share_link. The 'every' quantifier makes the bulk nature of the operation unambiguous.

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 implied by the semantics — an agent can infer this is the counterpart to create_share_link — but the description never explicitly says when to call it, nor does it name the sibling or state any precondition (e.g. that share links must exist).

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