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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description usefully spells out what idempotency means concretely (a repeat call returns the original result). It says nothing about permissions required, whether revocation is permanent/irreversible, or what happens to viewers already using the link — real gaps for a destructive mutation.

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 tight sentences: effect first, retry semantics second. Nothing is wasted and the most important information (what the tool does) 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?

With no output schema and only 40% parameter coverage, the description is adequate but thin for a destructive tool — it does not resolve the ambiguous required `id` or describe side effects. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the retry note is a genuine addition, so it is viable but not complete.

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 only 40%, so the description carries more burden, yet it only illuminates idempotency_key and adds nothing about the required `id` (it is never clarified as the report-link id rather than the report id). brand_id, query, and the sparse workspace_id handling remain unexplained.

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+resource ("Revoke a report share link") and its effect ("so it stops working"), which cleanly separates it from aidelly_create_report_link and aidelly_list_report_links. It stops short of naming any sibling or noting how it differs from the other revoke/delete link tools (revoke_connect_link, revoke_client_review_link, delete_short_link).

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?

Usage is implied by "so it stops working" and the retry guidance for idempotency_key, so an agent can infer this is the tool for killing a live share link. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternative revoke/delete link tools.

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