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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disambiguating the blast radius: 'Permanently' signals irreversibility and 'The document and versions remain' explicitly states what is NOT destroyed, which is genuinely useful for a destructive call. It does not address idempotency (annotations say not idempotent) or permissions.

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, front-loaded with the destructive action, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying scope of destruction. No filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the outcome for the document/versions but leaves the two parameter semantics entirely unexplained and says nothing about auth requirements or behavior on an already-revoked link. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% — both document_id and link_id carry only a regex pattern with no meaning. The description alludes to 'one document viewing link' but never explains the relationship between document_id and link_id or the expected identifier format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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) with a specific resource (one document viewing link) and scope ('one'), which cleanly separates it from shareout_create_link and shareout_list_links. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., list_links to find the link_id first), no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens if the link is already revoked. The agent must infer the entire workflow.

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