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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: 'for good' signals a destructive, irreversible action, the note about already-opened page links expiring within a day discloses delayed side effects, and 'Owner or office only' states an authorization requirement. It stops short of covering idempotency, error behavior, or response shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the main effect, followed by the important delayed-expiry caveat and authorization constraint. There is no wasted text.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: permanence, delayed impact on already-opened links, and who may perform it. It is somewhat incomplete on parameter meaning and edge-case behavior, but the core context is present.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter, link_id, is never mentioned or explained in the description. The phrase 'customer hub link' implies the target, but the description does not clarify that the caller must pass the link UUID or how to obtain it.

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 and resource: stop a customer hub link from working permanently. It clearly says what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from related sibling tools such as hub_links or shares_revoke.

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?

It implies when to use the tool by describing permanent revocation of a customer hub link and adds an eligibility constraint: owner or office only. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for related revocation tasks.

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