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 carried. The description adds real value beyond them: revocation is account-scoped, an editor only revokes their own links, other links stay live until their maker or a workspace owner acts, and the response counts the leftovers. It stops short of saying whether the board itself is affected, but the phrasing implies it is not.

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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded before the permission caveat. Every clause carries information; only 'the answer counts them' is slightly oblique phrasing for what the response returns.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the mutation and idempotency profile. What remains is the subtle partial-permission behavior, which the description handles well; the only gap is the absence of any precondition or alternative-tool routing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents board_id as 'the board to stop sharing'. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, which matches the baseline for a fully covered single-parameter schema.

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: it stops a board's view-only links from opening by revoking them. The scope 'every one this account may revoke' distinguishes it from share_board and from delete_board, so an agent can tell this is link revocation, not board deletion, without opening another 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 purpose implies when to use it (turning off link-based sharing), and the role-based revocation rule is stated. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over share_board's counterpart, delete_board, or update_boards, and there is no stated precondition such as needing a link to exist.

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