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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains that only the public copy is deleted while the artifact stays in Muninn, that the URL dies immediately for everyone, that any named address also stops resolving, and that republishing mints a NEW link so the old one is permanently dead. That is exactly the extra context needed before an irreversible 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?

Front-loads the action and the intent triggers before the consequences, then closes with the return shape. Six short sentences, each carrying distinct information — scope of deletion, side effect on named addresses, irreversibility, safety on the no-op case, response fields — with 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?

With no output schema present, the description supplies the return shape ({success, artifactId, wasPublished}), and the annotations cover the safety profile. Between them, an agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this and what it will get back.

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% for the single artifactId parameter, which already documents that a full UUID or unique prefix is accepted. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

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/unpublish) on a specific resource (an artifact's public link) and immediately distinguishes it from its sibling muninn_artifact_publish by describing the opposite direction of the operation. An agent can identify the tool from the name plus the first clause alone.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger list ('unpublish, unshare, make this private again, take it down, stop sharing that link') that maps user phrasing to the tool, and explicitly resolves an edge case — 'Safe to call on an artifact that was never published' — so the agent knows the no-op case is acceptable rather than an error.

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