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

Far exceeds what annotations convey (destructiveHint/idempotentHint are just hints). It enumerates exactly what is destroyed (page URL, image/video copy, shared script, shown request), states the action is irreversible and that re-sharing produces a new URL, clarifies job files survive, and specifies the authorization requirement plus the not_found outcome.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the action comes first, then effects, then irreversibility, then scope limits and error behavior. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers destruction scope, reversibility, auth, side effects on other artifacts, and the failure case. Nothing material for correct invocation 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% and the schema already explains job_id formats (j_..., b_...) and where it comes from. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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+resource ('Take down the public share page of a job') and explicitly ties it to the sibling that created it (render_share). An agent can distinguish it from render_share, render_cancel, and render_status without opening 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?

Gives clear context: this undoes render_share, only the key that shared the job can do it, and a job without a share page returns not_found. It also clarifies that the job's own files are not affected. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or a 'when not to use' case beyond the not_found condition.

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