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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the resulting visibility state, that the share token is retained for audit, that the public route returns 404, and that bucket cleanup is best-effort rather than guaranteed. The main omissions are authorization requirements and behavior when the file was never published (error vs. no-op).

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the primary effect is front-loaded and the behavioral caveats follow. No filler or restated schema content.

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 one-parameter mutation with an output schema covering return values, the description supplies effect, side effects, and reversibility context (token retained). It stops short of stating permission requirements or the already-private case, which an agent could plausibly need.

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 100% with a single self-documented param ('File UUID to unpublish'), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or provenance, which is expected at this coverage level.

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 and resource (revoke public access to a shared file) and clarifies the resulting state ('visibility back to private'), so the agent knows exactly what changes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling storage_unpublish or reference its inverse file_publish, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 the effect described (call it when a file should stop being public), but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites (e.g. ownership/permission requirements), and no routing hint against the closely named sibling storage_unpublish. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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