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

Annotations already indicate a destructive write, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the action is idempotent ('repeating this action is safe') and irreversible with respect to previously downloaded copies ('cannot be recalled'). This tells the agent the side-effect boundary beyond the annotation flags.

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, front-loaded sentences deliver the core action and the two most important behavioral caveats. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter input, the existing output schema, and annotations, the description covers the needed calling context: owner scope, revocable future retrieval, idempotence, and the inability to recall downloaded copies. No crucial behavior is missing for correct invocation.

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 description only alludes to 'one shared result reference' and never names reference_id or explains the format, so it adds limited parameter semantics. However, with a single required parameter whose schema includes the pattern ^ref_[a-f0-9]{32}$, an agent can map the reference concept to the parameter without difficulty.

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 names a precise action ('revokes future retrieval') and an explicit object ('shared result reference'), clearly differentiating it from create_result_reference and get_result_reference. It avoids tautology and states the resource's effect.

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 'Owner revokes future retrieval' provides clear context for when the tool should be selected: the caller owns a shared reference and wants to stop future access. It doesn't explicitly contrast with delete_job or other siblings, but the purpose statement is specific enough to establish the appropriate use case.

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