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

The description explicitly states 'The app itself is untouched,' clarifying that the operation only affects the share, not the app. Combined with the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true, idempotentHint true), the behavior is transparent. It does not describe side effects like notifications, but the core destructive action is clear and consistent with the annotations.

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?

The description is two concise sentences that pack all essential information: action, target, scope, permission context, and non-destructive nature. There is no redundancy, fluff, or unnecessary detail. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, who can use it, under what condition, and clarifies the effect on the app. No critical information is missing for a typical caller to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including format hints ('Starts with app_', 'Starts with shr_'). The description adds relational context by indicating the share id comes 'from list_app_shares,' and both parameters are referenced in the description. This goes beyond the schema's baseline, giving additional meaning about how the parameters relate.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove one share by its id'), the target resource ('share'), and the scope ('by its id'). It also clarifies that the app itself is untouched, and specifies the intended user role (owner or editor) and condition (editor-managed sharing enabled), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 description provides explicit usage conditions: 'The owner or an editor may use this when editor-managed sharing is enabled.' It also implicitly distinguishes from adding shares by referencing list_app_shares, though it does not name an alternative tool for adding shares. This is sufficient guidance for when to use the tool, but could be slightly more explicit about when not to use it.

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