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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming exactly what is destroyed: an active direct-access grant or an unaccepted invitation. It stops short of stating permission requirements (owner/admin only) or what happens to the recipient's session access.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. Every word carries information and nothing is repeated from the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is structurally simple. However, for a destructive one-parameter tool the description leaves open which id to pass and what permissions are required, gaps that matter for correct invocation.

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?

One required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage; the description says nothing about it. It is unclear whether the id identifies the share entry, a user, or a workspace member, which is a meaningful ambiguity for a destructive call. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

Specific verb (revoke) plus a precise resource definition: 'a direct access grant or pending invitation'. This clarifies that a 'share' covers both an active grant and an outstanding invite, which an agent cannot infer from the name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with update_share or invite_share, but the verb-revoke framing makes the operation distinct.

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 verb (use when access must be removed) but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as update_share for downgrading access or archive/delete for larger scope. The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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