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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: revocation happens 'immediately after current-state confirmation,' other links are unaffected, and prior downloads cannot be recalled. This is valuable context on scope, timing, and irreversibility. It aligns with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, with no contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the most important behavioral caveats. Every clause adds information: scope, confirmation requirement, isolation from other links, and the inability to recall downloads. There is no filler.

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 destructive, conditional operation requiring expected_version, confirmation_token, and idempotency_key, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to obtain the current-state confirmation, what happens on version mismatch, or why the idempotency key is required. The output schema helps, but the high-risk nature and 0% parameter coverage demand more explicit guidance.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It vaguely alludes to the 'selected bearer link' and 'current-state confirmation,' which map somewhat to link_id and expected_version/confirmation_token, but it never names or explains the required idempotency_key or the project_id/room_id scoping. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 object: 'Revoke the selected bearer link.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_share_link and list_share_links by emphasizing 'selected bearer link' and 'any other links are unaffected.' The purpose is immediately actionable.

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 implies use when a specific share link must be revoked, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives or what preconditions must hold before calling it. It references 'current-state confirmation' but does not guide the agent on how to obtain that confirmation. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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