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

Beyond the destructive and idempotent annotations, the description explains the revocation's scope and its important non-retroactive limitation: existing copies in other workspaces remain independent. It also implies an ownership prerequisite, but does not discuss recovery, repeat-call behavior, or failure when no active link exists.

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 front-load the action and then state the essential exception. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary implementation detail.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations covering its safety profile, the description supplies the key scope and consequence needed to invoke it appropriately. Explicit alternatives and recovery or inactive-link behavior would make it more complete, but their absence is not a major obstacle.

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?

The schema already fully documents score_id, including where to obtain it, so the baseline is adequate. The description adds useful eligibility context by indicating that the target is an owned score link rather than an arbitrary score identifier.

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 description uses a specific verb and resource: revoking an owned score link and preventing future copies. It clearly conveys the operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as publish_score_share or manage_score_access.

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 ownership qualifier establishes when the tool applies, and the second sentence clarifies that it is not a way to remove copies already saved elsewhere. It does not name an alternative for managing access or explain whether publishing a new share is the way to restore sharing.

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