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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses key effects: author-only authorization, immediate invalidation of the link and redeemed read permissions, and unchanged request history. It still omits error behavior and whether the share record itself is preserved, but the main mutation semantics are clear.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The authorization constraint is front-loaded, followed by the precise side effects.

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 simple revocation tool, the description covers the essential authorization and side effects. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage for the two required parameters, the missing parameter semantics leave a meaningful gap.

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 planId or shareId at all. An agent can infer that shareId identifies the link and planId the cooperation plan, but the definition provides no explicit mapping, format, or constraints.

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-resource pair: revoking a cooperation share. It is clearly distinct from create/list/redeem cooperation-share siblings by action, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.

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?

It gives one important usage condition — only the author can revoke — which helps an agent know whether this call is permitted. However, it does not say when to choose this over related tools such as delete_cooperation_plan or how to handle non-author cases.

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