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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only 'straight away', and leaves the key behavioral question open: whether the link is permanently destroyed or merely disabled, and whether it can be re-enabled or recreated later. That ambiguity between 'turn off' and a destructive revoke matters for a destructiveHint=true tool.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though 'straight away' is slightly informal and carries little precise meaning for an agent inferring effect timing.

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 tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is borderline adequate. Still missing is what the caller should expect after invocation — whether existing visitors lose access instantly, whether the operation is reversible, and when to prefer revoke_watch_link or delete alternatives.

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?

A single shareId parameter with 100% schema description coverage (formatted as sh_…), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no format, validation, or ownership detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: turn off a share link. That is distinguishable from list_share_links and create_share_link without opening a schema. It does not differentiate from revoke_watch_link or the delete_* family, but the resource noun 'share link' anchors it well enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as revoke_watch_link or the delete_* tools, and no prerequisites are stated. The only contextual signal is the adverb 'straight away', which hints at immediacy but does not say what condition selects this tool.

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