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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the URL dies immediately even if forwarded, that the assignment is marked revoked, and that already-submitted responses are untouched — meaningful for a destructiveHint=true tool. It also explains the confirmation protocol (status='confirmation_required', action_id, plan_token, write only after confirm_action), which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs. Minor gap: no mention of permissions or irreversibility of the revocation itself.

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?

Front-loads the effect, then consequences, then the follow-up tool, then the confirmation mechanics. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the confirmation response shape and the post-confirmation write. The remaining hole is parameter documentation, particularly the unexplained 'detail' field, which leaves the definition slightly incomplete for a two-parameter mutation.

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% for two parameters. The description implies assignment_id via 'form assignment's link' but never explains it, and the 'detail' parameter (string, maxLength 255) is entirely unaddressed — an agent cannot tell whether it is a revocation reason, a note, or something else.

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 — 'Kill a form assignment's link immediately' — and immediately scopes the effect ('the URL stops working even if it was forwarded'). It is clearly distinguishable from hr_assign_form, which it names as the counterpart for issuing links.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (revoking a live link) and points to hr_assign_form for re-issuing afterwards, which helps an agent sequence operations. It does not explicitly state when revocation is inappropriate or what happens if the assignment is already revoked, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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