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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the blast radius ('the link stops working for everyone who has it') and the resulting state ('Returns is_public false'), which annotations cannot convey. It stops short of noting auth/permission requirements or reversibility.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, followed by the consequence and the return value. No filler or repetition.

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 mutation with a strong annotation set, the description covers action, effect, and a summary of the return state despite there being no output schema. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% with the single flow_id parameter fully documented ('The id of the flow to unshare'). The description adds no format, identity, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, 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 ('Turn off') and resource ('the public read-only link for a Wavelength flow'), scoping exactly which sharing mechanism is affected. This distinguishes it from collaborator-removal siblings like remove_external_collaborators and from the inverse share_flow, without needing to open 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 name and description (revoke public access), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the obvious alternatives such as share_flow or get_share_status. Adequate context, but the agent must infer the routing itself.

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