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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value by clarifying that the operation is a soft disable that retains history and leaves other recipients untouched — refining what 'destructive' means here. It still omits any mention of permissions or what happens to already-visited links.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key scoping fact (history preserved, other recipients unaffected) comes first.

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 two-required-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should identify both parameters and any authorization requirement. It conveys only the soft-delete semantics, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly without guessing at the ids.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not name or explain either required parameter. It hints that 'recipientId' scopes to one recipient versus 'other recipients', but nothing tells the agent what 'id' refers to (link, document, or project), so the gap is largely uncompensated.

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 ('Disable') and resource ('one personal link'), and the qualifier 'preserving its history and other recipients' distinguishes this soft-disable from the delete_* siblings. It is clear without opening the schema, though it never uses the tool's own 'revoke' framing to tie back to the name.

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 clause about preserving history implicitly signals this is the non-destructive alternative to deleting a link, but the description never states when to prefer it over siblings or what precondition (e.g. an active link) applies. Usage is left to inference.

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