render_unshare

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

With destructiveHint=true already in the annotations, the description still adds substantial value: it enumerates exactly what is destroyed (page URL, its copy of the image/video, shared script, shown request, gallery listing), states irreversibility and that re-sharing creates a new URL, clarifies job files are untouched, and documents the auth constraint (only the sharing key) plus the not_found case. The idempotentHint is consistent — repeat calls change nothing further.

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 destructive effect is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by consequence, irreversibility, scope of side effects, and error case in compact declarative sentences. No filler or repetition; every sentence carries operational information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains for an agent to call this correctly — what gets deleted, that it can't be undone, whose key is required, and what happens with no share page — is all 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the job_id field description is already detailed (j_.../b_... prefixes, which key's jobs, render_status behavior), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the constraint that the caller must hold the key that created the share, which is auth context rather than parameter syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Take down the public share page of a job') and names the sibling that creates that page (render_share), letting an agent separate it from render_share, render_download, or render_status without reading any schema.

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 establishes the precondition clearly ('a job made with render_share') and the failure mode ('a job without a share page returns not_found'), and the job_id schema text explains which identifier to supply from render_preview/render_final. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to pair or a pointer to the sharing sibling for the reverse action.

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