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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain that concurrent ACL changes will fail, what exactly is destroyed, or whether the revoke is reversible. One sentence restating the title is minimal added value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and object come first. It is arguably under-specified for a destructive, four-parameter mutation, but as pure conciseness it is efficient and well-structured.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with four required parameters, an output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description omits the concurrency contract (expectedAclVersion), conflict behavior, and auth requirements. Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, but the mutation's operational preconditions are absent.

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 coverage is only 25%, so most parameters have no schema description. The mention of 'secret-link or public publication access' loosely hints at the mode enum, but expectedAclVersion (an optimistic-concurrency token) is never explained, and the description does not compensate for the gap. Only idempotencyKey carries guidance, and that comes from the schema, not the description.

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 ('Revoke') and resource ('secret-link or public publication access'), which maps onto the mode enum values. It is distinguishable from sheets_enable_public_access and sheets_rotate_link by implying removal rather than creation or rotation. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus sheets_enable_public_access, sheets_rotate_link, or sheets_revoke_invitation, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or the need to fetch a current ACL version first. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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