delete_share_link

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the deletion action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether links become invalid immediately), required permissions, or error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to understand consequences.

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 a single, short sentence—it is concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail; it achieves conciseness but fails to provide adequate information for safe tool invocation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema exists), the description minimally covers the operation. However, it omits context like parent resources (e.g., does it belong to a document or project?), reversibility, and relation to create_share_link and get_share_link. It is adequate for a generic delete but incomplete for a rich context.

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?

The sole parameter 'link_id' has no description beyond its schema (type: string, required). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no context about how to obtain or format the ID. The agent must rely on the schema alone, which is insufficient for a required parameter.

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 'Delete a share link.' clearly identifies the action (delete) and resource (share link), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling delete tools like delete_billing_item or delete_folder, missing an opportunity to clarify 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a share link should be removed versus disabled). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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