delete_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely valuable behavioral fact — the underlying file is not deleted — but it omits permission requirements, whether the revocation is reversible, and what happens to users who already had access.

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?

One compact sentence with the destructive scope front-loaded and the non-destructive caveat immediately after. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential ambiguity (does this delete the file?) and the ID source. Only the permission/auth and reversibility details are missing, which is a modest gap.

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% (the lone `share_id` param is documented as "Share ID"), so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by telling the agent where to obtain the ID (`list_shares`), which is real semantic value for a single-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb ("Remove") and resource ("a share or public link"), and the trailing clause "the file itself stays" separates it from the sibling `delete`, which presumably removes the file. It stops short of naming `update_share`/`create_share` as the siblings it is not, but an agent can still tell what this tool does.

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 parenthetical "(ID from list_shares)" implies the workflow of listing shares first, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement about when to prefer `update_share` (e.g., to revoke access without deleting the link), and no prerequisites mentioned.

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