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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description discloses that the operation is bulk (every live link is turned off), that it is two-phase (a preview is returned unless confirm: true), and what the response reports (count of links that were live). It stops short of saying the revocation is irreversible or that previously shared links stop working immediately.

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?

Three short clauses: effect, return value, confirm gate — front-loaded with the destructive effect, zero padding. Nothing is repeated verbatim from the schema in a wasteful way.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the blast radius, the confirm flow, and the return shape. It omits reversibility and whether the client is notified, which are the remaining things an agent would want before calling.

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 both parameters are well documented in the schema (including that clientId comes from list_clients and that confirm gates execution). The description adds only that the effect is scoped to 'a client', so the schema is doing essentially all the work.

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 ('Turn off') and a precisely scoped resource ('every live private link for a client'), including the bulk scope. It does not name its closest siblings (create_client_portal_link, revoke_plan_share_links), so an agent must infer the boundary from the tool name alone.

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?

Usage is implied: use it to kill portal access for a client. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of what to do instead if only one link should be revoked or which link should be kept, and no reference to the create_client_portal_link counterpart that would restore access.

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