revoke_share_linkTake a share link down for good. Name the link by share_id and the reference it was minted on. The page stops answering; nothing else changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| share_id | Yes | ||
| reference | Yes | A generation or upload, as list_media names it. A group generation shares the whole set. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| share_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / folder_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Share a folder's contents as one wall instead.",
- "format": "uuid",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "share_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "reference",
+ "share_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value beyond them by stressing permanence ("for good") and scoping the blast radius — "the page stops answering; nothing else changes" — telling the agent existing content is untouched.
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, no waste, with the core action front-loaded before the parameter naming and the effect statement.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers irreversibility and scope, leaving only how to source the share_id unstated.
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 50%: `reference` is well documented in-schema, while `share_id` is bare. The description adds that the link is named by both share_id and the reference it was minted on, reinforcing the schema but giving no format or lookup detail for share_id.
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?
"Take a share link down for good" names a specific verb (revoke) and resource (share link) with unmistakable meaning. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from create_share_link or list_share_links, but the purpose is 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?
No statement of when to use this versus alternatives, nor how to obtain a share_id (e.g. via list_share_links). The only usage-adjacent guidance is which fields identify the link. Usage is entirely implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.