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

The description discloses the immediate behavioral consequence of the operation ('URL stops working immediately'), which is useful. It does not cover side effects, idempotency, failure cases, or permission requirements, but the annotations provide no contradicting safety hints, so the score stays at a moderate level.

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?

Two short sentences convey the effect and the way to find required parameters. There is no filler, and the most important behavioral fact is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the primary behavior and parameter sourcing. It does not mention error behavior or idempotency, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema already documents tokenId well, and the description reinforces that tokenId values are obtained from create_edit_link or the list endpoint. For id, the description's URL pattern 'GET /assets/{id}/edit-links' implies id is an asset identifier, but this is not explicitly stated in the property description. At 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but could be more explicit.

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 identifies the operation as revoking an edit link and states the concrete effect ('URL stops working immediately'). It is distinguishable from the create_edit_link sibling by the action name and effect, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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: when you need to make an edit link stop working. It provides guidance on obtaining the required tokenId via GET /assets/{id}/edit-links, but it does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives.

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