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

Annotations give destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description supplies the crucial semantics the hints cannot: only the share link is destroyed, the automation keeps running, and accounts that already imported copies keep them. It also spells out the idempotent outcome (revokedLinks is 0 when nothing was shared).

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 action and its scope are front-loaded, and each clause carries distinct information (effect, alternatives, persistence of copies, idempotency, return value). It is dense with parenthetical asides, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description documents the return value (revokedLinks, a count). Combined with the idempotency rules and the side-effect scope, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, and both flowId (from list_automations, not the share token) and idempotencyKey are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb and resource: turn off the private share link created by share_automation for one automation. It also disambiguates from the adjacent operations (set_automation_active to stop the automation, delete_automation to remove it), so the agent can distinguish it from hundreds of siblings without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the alternatives and the conditions that select them: use set_automation_active to switch the automation off, use delete_automation to remove it. It also defines the repeat-call case ('if it was not shared, nothing changes').

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