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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by stating the recall is immediate, what access is disabled, that restore:true reverses it, and an honest limitation: it cannot un-send or claw back already-read/copied/screenshotted content. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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 effect and key limitation are front-loaded, the restore behavior is stated concisely, and the 'HONEST LIMIT' sentence earns its place by preventing overclaiming. No wasteful repetition.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: immediate effect, reversibility, owner scoping, and the critical limitation about prior access. An agent can invoke it correctly and set expectations.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces that restore:true re-enables access, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 and resource: revoke/recall secure-reader access for a sent email by message_id. It precisely describes the effect (recipient can no longer open via the reader link) and distinguishes the operation from deletion or un-send, making sibling selection clear.

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?

Clearly explains the primary use case and the restore:true inverse operation, plus the owner-scoped prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as mAYL_delete for permanent removal, so the guidance is strong but not fully comparative.

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