revoke_shared_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this thoroughly: states the link stops working, the record remains searchable, describes backend-specific differences (immediate irreversible deletion on Gist vs 7-day grace on Selfhost), and clarifies that this is not the tool for full record removal.

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 tight sentences deliver high information density with zero filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first states core behavior, the second covers backend differences, and the third directs to the sibling tool for the full-erase use case.

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 relatively simple revoke operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral dimensions well. The only gap is parameter documentation (doc_id_or_url format, updated_user purpose), but the core operation semantics are complete.

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 must compensate for both parameters. It doesn't explain what doc_id_or_url should contain (a document ID or a URL format) or what updated_user is for. The description provides zero parameter-level guidance despite having two undocumented parameters.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Revoke a shared doc') and clearly states the effect: the link stops working but the record stays searchable. It distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_shared_doc tool by naming it explicitly as the alternative for full erasure.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs delete_shared_doc, and even differentiates behavior between Gist and Selfhost backends. This gives the agent clear decision rules for which action to pick.

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