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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that the share token is retained for audit, that GET /d/{share_token} now returns 404, and that bucket bytes are preserved rather than deleted. These are precisely the side effects an agent needs before invoking a visibility mutation; only permission requirements and idempotency are left unstated.

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, front-loaded with the action and state transition, followed by targeted consequences. The parenthetical about bucket bytes not being a CDN mirror is slightly incidental but earns its place by preventing a wrong assumption about data loss.

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?

The tool is a simple one-parameter mutation and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. The description covers the key effects (404 on the share URL, bytes retained); only authorization and repeat-call behavior are missing, which leaves it slightly short of fully 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 100% and the single file_id parameter is documented in the schema as the object UUID to unpublish. The description adds no format, constraint, or selection guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Revoke public access to a Storage object") and clarifies the resulting state ("visibility back to private"). It does not explicitly name the inverse sibling storage_publish or the parallel file_unpublish, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 — call this when an object should no longer be publicly reachable. There is no explicit "use X instead" routing to storage_publish or file_unpublish, and no stated prerequisites such as required permissions or whether the call is idempotent.

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