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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful impact context beyond that: the revocation is immediate and affects anyone currently holding the public link, which is not derivable from the annotations alone. It omits whether revocation is permanent or recoverable, but the added consequence is meaningful.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the consequence immediately after. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect well but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain the two undocumented ID parameters or state preconditions such as ownership of the story. Adequate but not complete for the tool's complexity.

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 only 33% — confirmRevocation is documented in-schema, but storyId and linkId have no descriptions anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining what a linkId is or where to obtain it, nor does it reinforce the explicit-approval requirement that confirmRevocation enforces.

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 (revoke) and resource (story share link) with scope narrowed to 'one public' link, which cleanly separates it from create_story_share_link and list_story_share_links. It stops short of naming sibling tools or explaining what a share link is, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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 by the action itself — you revoke a link that already exists, presumably found via list_story_share_links. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g., must own the story), and no mention of siblings, leaving routing to inference.

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