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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, but the description adds substantial context: links stop working immediately, revocation is permanent and cannot be undone, re-sharing mails a new link, missing shares are reported rather than refused, and it doesn't alter other users' access. This is rich behavioral detail beyond the structured hints.

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?

Core action is front-loaded and each sentence is informative, but there is minor redundancy ('revoking is permanent' and 'this cannot be undone' restate each other) and the sentence 'Sharing does not change who else can reach the site' is slightly confusing mid-definition.

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 no output schema, the description correctly explains part of the return behavior (addresses with no share are reported) and covers permissions, limits, and failure modes. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about what the response contains for the revoked addresses.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning for the kind enum by explaining that app cannot be shared by email and will be refused, and clarifies the effect on the emails list (link stops working). This goes somewhat beyond the schema text.

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 (revoke) and resource (people's shares of a website, by email), which is unambiguous and clearly the inverse of the sibling share_service. 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 a clear operating context: confirm the addresses with the user first, prerequisites (requires connecting a Valet account), and an exclusion (only a website can be shared by email; an app is refused). It never explicitly names the counterpart share_service, but the conditions for correct use are well covered.

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