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

The description states revoked:true 'permanently stop[s] the link from accepting new submissions (irreversible)', which is exactly an irreversible modification of existing state, yet annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct inconsistency with the structured safety signal, so the disclosure is treated as contradicting the annotations despite being otherwise rich (permission-to-detach, clearing semantics, slug rules).

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 critical delete-path note is front-loaded before the field list, and each bullet maps to one parameter with no filler. It runs slightly long and restates the 'both required together' rule, but every sentence carries actionable content.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation-based parameter detail, the description covers every parameter, its sentinel values, its constraints, and the cross-tool lookup needed. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 must carry the load, and it does: expiresAt '0 clears', maxClaims '-1 clears', customDomainId+customSlug 'both required together' and 'pass both null to detach', plus slug length/charset rules. Sentinel values and pairing rules are not derivable from the schema alone.

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 and resource ('Update a share link's settings') and immediately disambiguates scope by declaring it also serves as the delete path, since no separate _delete tool exists in the sibling list. An agent can distinguish it from formShareLink_create and formShareLink_list without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: use revoked:true 'for any "remove this link" intent', covering both never-shared cleanup and audit-trail-preserving revocation. It also names the lookup dependency (customDomainId via formShareLink_list) and the constraint that revoked cannot combine with other fields.

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