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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), it discloses exactly what is destroyed — the link and redeemed read permissions — and what is unaffected (sent request history). It also adds an authorization constraint. This is exactly the kind of contextual side-effect disclosure an agent needs for a destructive action.

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 compact sentences that front-load the authorization condition and then state effects and non-effects. No filler or redundancy; every clause contributes behavioral information.

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?

Given that this is a destructive action with no output schema, the description covers the critical points: who may call it, what becomes invalid, and what remains unchanged. It does not describe error/edge cases (e.g., already-revoked share), but the core context needed for safe use is present.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what planId and shareId mean, their relationship, or their format. The names are somewhat self-evident, but with no schema descriptions and no parameter-level guidance, the agent must guess whether shareId is a token, a database ID, or a URL component.

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 states a specific verb ('revoke'), the resource (cooperation share link), and the precise effect: the link and any already-redeemed read permissions are invalidated. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like create_cooperation_share, redeem_cooperation_share, or delete_cooperation_plan, since the target is the share itself, not the whole plan.

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 gives a clear precondition ('only the author can revoke') and implies the intended use: to invalidate a previously created share link. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is more implied than explicit.

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