saihm_revoke_share

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

The description implies destructive behavior ('revoke') but provides no details on consequences, such as whether revocation is irreversible or what side effects occur. With no annotations to clarify (readOnlyHint missing), the agent lacks critical safety information.

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 extremely concise at 7 words, avoiding redundancy. However, it could be slightly expanded to include important context without losing efficiency. Front-loading is adequate.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to disclose return behavior, error conditions, or success/failure signals. For a destructive action, this is insufficient completeness.

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 single parameter (contractId) is described in the schema as 'Sharing contract ID to revoke.' The description merely restates this ('by its contractId'), adding no extra meaning. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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 clearly states the action (revoke) and the resource (sharing contract) via contractId. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like saihm_recall or saihm_share, which could cause confusion about which tool to use for revoking different types of contracts.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, such as whether the contract must exist or if the user must be the owner. This leaves the agent without context for proper selection.

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