unshare_resource_endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether unsharing is reversible, whether it requires ownership/admin permission, or whether the target must be a user or a group. For an access-revocation mutation, that context is valuable and absent.

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 words is concise but under-specified rather than efficient; the single fragment carries almost no information and there is no structure beyond a restated title. It reads as a placeholder rather than a front-loaded, purposeful first 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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no usage guidance, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell which parameters are required to scope the unshare, what resource types are valid, or what the result of the call is.

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 only 40%: resource_id and resource_type are documented in the schema, but group_id, user_email, and workspace_api_key_id are not. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the three undocumented parameters and does not clarify the user_email-vs-group_id targeting choice.

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 verb and resource ('Unshare Workspace Resource'), so an agent knows it reverses sharing. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title and gives no differentiation from the sibling share_resource_endpoint, nor any clue about what 'unsharing' actually does (revoking a user's or group's access to a specific resource_type).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative share_resource_endpoint or any related sibling. The agent gets no signal about when this tool should be chosen over other access-management routes.

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