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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by stating the immediate effect: 'the token stops working immediately.' It also clarifies that this affects the public link, not the file itself. Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent behavior, so the description adds valuable behavioral detail without contradicting the structured data.

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 description is concise, consisting of two sentences: one for the primary purpose and another for bulk support. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action and bulk support but misses details such as parameter relationships, prerequisites (e.g., file must be published), and what happens if the file is already unpublished. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke it without additional assumptions.

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 compensate. It explains that file_ids enables batch execution, giving meaning to that parameter. However, it does not explain the 'account' parameter or the relationship between file_id and file_ids (e.g., whether they are exclusive or complementary). This leaves important semantic gaps.

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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Revokes the public link of a file (the token stops working immediately).' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like crm_publish_file (the opposite action) and crm_delete_file (deletes the file itself).

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 this tool: when you need to revoke a public link or token. It also notes bulk support for file_ids, indicating use for batched operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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