Revoke exact version share link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds value beyond that by specifying exactly what is destroyed (all public and code-protected URLs) and adding a behavioral nuance: re-publishing a protected link rotates its code. This gives the agent useful expectations about the tool's side effects without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action and target, and the second sentence provides a relevant behavioral detail. No filler or redundancy; both sentences earn their 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 covers the primary purpose and one behavioral nuance, but does not address prerequisites, error conditions, or the idempotency_key's purpose. Given it is a destructive mutation with no output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness, though the annotations mitigate some gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does not mention project_id, version_id, or idempotency_key at all. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare names, and it fails to explain the critical idempotency_key requirement. This is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the verb ('Disable') and the exact resource ('every existing public or code-protected URL for one exact saved version'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_version_share_link and create_version_share_link, which are about retrieving or creating links rather than revoking them. The added note about re-publishing a protected link rotating its code further clarifies the tool's specific scope.

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 gives a clear context for use: you invoke this to disable share links for a specific saved version. The phrase 'for one exact saved version' implies a limitation (not for all versions) and aligns with typical usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over the create/get link siblings, though the action is self-evident.

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