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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful detail beyond them: the link cannot be restored, the report persists with revoked: true rather than being deleted, and the call is free. It does not address the tension between idempotentHint=false and the idempotency_key parameter, which the schema handles instead.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then permanence, then the fallback path, then cost. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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. The description covers what is destroyed, what survives, irreversibility and cost — everything an agent needs to invoke this mutation safely.

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 100%, so brand, report_id and idempotency_key are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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 with precision: 'Kill a report's public link.' It also implicitly distinguishes itself from create_report, which it names as the alternative path. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Gives clear context for choosing this tool — it destroys a public link irreversibly — and routes the agent to create_report when they actually want a working link. No explicit trigger conditions for when revocation is appropriate, but the alternative is named clearly.

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