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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the effect is immediate and scoped to the page and audio, clarifying what 'destructive' actually means here. It stops short of saying whether the link can be re-shared or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action first and its effect second. Every clause earns its place and there is 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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema revocation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. It could go one step further by noting reversibility (the link can be re-shared) or error behavior when nothing is shared, which is the only remaining gap.

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% for the single briefing_id parameter, including the useful 'Omit for the latest' default note. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb (revoke) and a precise resource (the public link of a briefing), and the clause 'the page and its audio stop answering' makes clear that only the shared link dies, not the briefing itself — a distinction that separates it from delete-style siblings. An agent can tell this is the inverse of share_briefing without opening any 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?

Usage is implied by the verb: use this when a briefing's public link should no longer work. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling share_briefing or of any prerequisite (e.g., that the briefing must currently be shared).

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