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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description isn't carrying safety alone; still, it adds real consequences beyond the annotations — later downloads fail, the action is irreversible, and the underlying file survives. It stops short of saying what happens on an unknown or already-revoked grant_id.

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 irreversible consequence and the file-survival caveat. The closing "Requires your API key" largely restates what the schema's api_key field already explains at length, so it earns slightly less than full marks.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, the download-side effect, and scope. It leaves only minor gaps: error behavior for a missing/unowned grant_id and confirmation of what a successful call returns.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about grant_id semantics (e.g., where to obtain it) or about the api_key fallback behavior.

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 ("Permanently revoke an owned share") and scopes it with "owned," which tells the agent it can only act on shares it created. The line "does not delete the file" separates it from the sibling delete_file.

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?

The description implies when to use it (to kill access to a share you own) and clarifies it is not a file deletion, but it never names an alternative or exclusion condition. With siblings like deny_share, update_share, and delete_file in the pool, the agent could still hesitate over which one ends access.

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