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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. "User session only" is a genuinely useful auth disclosure (implying API-key/service auth is rejected), but the description never says what revocation destroys — whether existing members lose access, whether previously shared links break for already-joined users, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 action. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing fragment "User session only" is cryptic shorthand that would read better as a full clause, and it is doing work that belongs in a proper usage sentence.

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 mutation with zero annotations and no output schema, an agent needs to know irreversibility, side effects on existing sharees, and the token's origin. Only the auth constraint is given, so the definition is too thin for the tool's risk profile.

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 50%: workspace_id is documented as "Workspace (notebook) UUID" while token is bare. The description partially compensates by framing the token as a share token, but it adds no format, provenance, or retrieval hint (e.g., where a share token comes from), leaving real ambiguity.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ("Revoke a share token"), which is unambiguous and clearly the inverse of the sibling workspace.share_create_link without needing to name it. It stops short of explicitly stating scope or differentiation from siblings like share_update_settings, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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?

"User session only" is an authentication constraint, not a when-to-use rule. There is no guidance about when revocation is appropriate versus regenerating settings, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites or when-not conditions.

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