Revoke a client share link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses permanence ('cannot be brought back to life'), token behavior, side effects (project/variations/comments survive), the confirm requirement, and the required scope ('kits:write'). This is comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 dense but not bloated; each sentence provides unique information, from URL behavior to the alternative tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words, maintaining clarity and efficiency.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers decision-relevant context: permanence, when to use, what is preserved, and required scope. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that confirm: true is required and without it nothing changes, and that projectId is an owned brand project id from list_brand_projects (already in schema). The extra context about confirm's effect justifies a slightly above-baseline score.

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 tool's function: 'Withdraw the client's access permanently' and specifies the resource (client share link). It distinguishes from sibling update_brand_share by naming it as the reversible alternative, making the specific purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly gives when to use: 'for a link that leaked or an engagement that ended' and when not to: 'Reach for update_brand_share with enabled: false instead when the client should see it again later.' This is an explicit alternative with rationale and context, far exceeding basic guidance.

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