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

Annotations already declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not destructive and closed-world. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the observable effect and reversibility ('sharing again gives a new link'). It does not say what happens to invitees who already used the link, whether prior recipients are notified, or what authorization the token grants, which matters for a revocation action.

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 with the effect front-loaded and zero filler; every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, this is close to sufficient. The only meaningful gap is the lack of routing guidance versus cancel_booking_as_invitee, the sibling an agent is most likely to confuse it with.

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 100% and both parameters (id, token) are documented in the schema, including that they may come from create_booking or the manageUrl. The description adds nothing further about the parameters, so the baseline 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?

The verb+resource is concrete ('Ends a booking's invitation') and the effect is spelled out ('its link stops working'), so an agent knows exactly what is being changed. It implicitly inverts share_booking_as_invitee but never names it, nor does it distinguish itself from the near-sibling cancel_booking_as_invitee, which is the main ambiguity here.

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 only implied: revoke sharing without cancelling the booking itself. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and the critical distinction from cancel_booking_as_invitee (revoke link vs. cancel the booking) is left for the agent to infer from the title.

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