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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the core destructive effect: removing one person's access or deleting a sharing link. However, it does not mention side effects, irreversibility, or what happens if the permission is in use elsewhere, so some behavioral context is missing.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a necessary prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description gives the action and the source of permissionId, which is enough to understand the core operation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from explaining where itemId comes from and what the agent should expect on success or failure.

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?

Only one of the three parameters (mailbox) is described in the schema, giving 33% coverage. The tool description adds meaning to permissionId by telling the agent to fetch it from list_onedrive_permissions, but itemId is left unexplained in both the schema and the description. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 action ('take away one person's access, or remove an existing sharing link') and resource ('a OneDrive file'). It clearly distinguishes from the share_onedrive_item sibling by focusing on revocation, and the title and description align.

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 explicitly tells the agent to obtain the required permissionId from list_onedrive_permissions, which is a clear usage prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with unshare_gdrive_item, but the guidance it provides is actionable.

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