Publish or revoke a public remio note link

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

The description discloses that explicit confirmation is required, which is a behavioral trait not captured by the annotations. It also names the three distinct actions including the destructive 'revoke'. While annotations already flag destructiveness, the confirmation requirement adds meaningful context.

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?

A single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and covers all three modes. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with only three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core behavior and the confirmation caveat, but could benefit from clarifying what 'refresh' does (e.g., invalidates the old URL). Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the semantics of the action values (publish, refresh, revoke) and the confirmation requirement. It does not explicitly describe note_id, but its meaning is self-evident from the tool's purpose.

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: publishing, refreshing, or revoking a public note link. The verb and resource are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like remio_read or remio_search_notes.

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?

The description implies its use case—when you need to manage public sharing of a note—but does not explicitly compare it with alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks explicit exclusionary guidance, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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