Revoke share

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance: it applies only to future reads, cannot retract already-read data, and the memory persists. These details are consistent with the annotations and deepen the agent's understanding beyond what structured fields convey.

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 sentences, each adding distinct information: action, limitation, and routing. The main action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition. The structure is efficient and immediately scannable.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and existing annotations. The description covers purpose, when to use, limitations, and sibling distinctions. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (contractId with its own description). The tool description merely references the parameter ('by its contractId') without adding extra semantics like format, provenance, or usage context, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('revoke') and resource ('sharing contract'), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing saihm_share (the granting tool) and saihm_forget (the erasure tool). It clearly answers what the tool does and how it differs from alternatives.

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 states when to use it ('Use it to end access') and when not to ('saihm_forget is what erases'), and notes the future-read limitation. This gives clear guidance on selecting this tool over its siblings without ambiguity.

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