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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: the revocation is permanent and irreversible, and the report remains listed with revoked: true. It also notes the operation is free. It does not mention required permissions or error behavior, keeping it at a strong 4.

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 and its irreversible consequence; the one-word 'Free.' earns its place by conveying cost. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the destructive consequence and the post-state. It stops short of covering auth/permission requirements or failure modes for a destructive write.

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 the schema fully documents brand, report_id, and idempotency_key. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise verb and resource: it kills a report's public link, and it explicitly distinguishes revocation (link dies, report survives) from deletion. Against siblings like delete_item and create_report, an agent can tell exactly which outcome this produces.

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 a clear routing condition: because a revoked link cannot be restored, the alternative is create_report for a new link. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use cases (e.g., use delete_item to remove the report itself), so it falls short of full alternative coverage.

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