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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that with the sign-in requirement and the ownership precondition, though it doesn't say whether access can be restored or what happens to the revoked share record.

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, the core action and its scope front-loaded, with the sign-in prerequisite tacked on efficiently. No redundant restatement of the title.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, it covers actor, ownership constraint, auth requirement and parameter provenance. The only gap is the outcome of the call (confirmation or error behavior), which is modest given the annotation coverage.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes further by identifying the origin of share_id ('from the list of shares'), telling the agent where to obtain the value rather than just its type. It says nothing extra about market, but that parameter is already fully documented.

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 ('Removes') and resource ('one person's access to a list'), plus the scope constraint that the shopper must own the list. This clearly separates it from share_wishlist and list_shares without needing the schema.

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?

The phrase 'the share_id from the list of shares' implicitly routes the agent to list_shares first, and 'Requires sign-in' establishes a precondition. It stops short of naming list_shares explicitly or stating when not to revoke (e.g., pending vs accepted invitations).

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