Revoke a share link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety framing is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: there is no server-side dry run, so the confirm gate is the only safeguard, and without it nothing is sent and a preview is returned instead. It omits whether revocation is reversible or what happens to already-issued links, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, followed immediately by the critical execution gate. Every clause carries information: verb, resource, method, write classification, confirm requirement, and the absence of a server-side dry run.

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 destructive, three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers how to execute safely but not the consequences: whether revoked links are permanently dead, what the preview response contains beyond 'a preview', or how failures surface. Adequate to invoke correctly, incomplete for judging impact.

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 67%, and the confirm parameter is already documented in the schema with the same preview semantics the description restates. The description's only added nuance is that there is no server-side dry run, while id and idempotencyKey get no elaboration beyond the schema; baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Revoke a share link') and even pins the underlying operation (DELETE /v1/share-links/{id}), so there is no ambiguity about what is being mutated. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as shareLinks_list or shareLinks_create, but the action is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

It gives clear invocation context: the call is a write that will not execute unless confirm: true is supplied. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., how to locate the id, or what to do instead if the link is already revoked), so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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