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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. However, it adds the HTTP method 'DELETE' which reinforces the destructive nature. No additional behavioral details are provided (e.g., whether the operation is reversible, what happens to shared access, or required permissions).

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 extremely concise at one sentence. It is front-loaded with the HTTP method and action. While it could benefit from additional structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters), there is no wasted text.

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 destructive operation with 5 parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the outcome of revoking a link, the response format, or any side effects. While annotations provide some safety context, the description fails to make the tool's behavior fully understandable.

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 low (40%), and the description does not add meaning to most parameters. The 'id' parameter is critical but lacks explanation; 'idempotency_key' is required but unexplained. Only 'workspace_id' has a brief description in the schema, but the tool description offers no help. The description fails to compensate for the schema's 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 ('revoke') and resource ('report share link'), and the HTTP method 'DELETE' further clarifies the operation. The tool name 'aidelly_revoke_report_link' is descriptive, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'aidelly_create_report_link' and 'aidelly_list_report_links'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites (e.g., an existing report link ID) are needed. No context is given about the conditions under which revoking a report link is appropriate.

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