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 covered; the description adds genuinely new context by specifying what is destroyed ('the encrypted file is deleted') and confirming the link stops working. It stops short of stating authorization requirements or what happens to copies already downloaded.

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 clauses, no filler, and the destructive consequence is front-loaded before the irreversibility warning. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation and schema coverage, the description covers effect, immediacy and irreversibility, which is what an agent needs to act safely. Minor gaps remain around permissions and residual copies, but nothing blocking.

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 (share_id) and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as a uuid, so the baseline applies. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier or where to obtain it (e.g., from list_shares).

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+resource ('Revoke a share') and immediately defines the effect: encrypted file deleted, link stops working. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like extend_share or get_share, which operate on the same resource without destroying it.

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 word 'Irreversible' plus 'immediately' gives the agent a clear decision signal for choosing this over softer alternatives, but no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., pausing vs. permanently destroying access).

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