delete_share_link_bundle

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds specific behavioral context: the public link stops working and documents are unaffected, plus permanent deletion. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it. It lacks details on permissions or reversibility, but the core destructive behavior is well disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with the destructive warning first. Every word earns its place, and the effect on documents is concisely stated. No fluff.

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 simple deletion tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (permanence, effect on public link and documents). It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication or admin rights, but these are not critical for this action's selection. The description is adequate for an agent to understand when and how to call it.

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 description coverage is 50% (only confirm has a description). The description does not clarify the 'id' parameter, which is left undocumented. Since coverage is below 50%, the description should compensate but does not mention id at all. Confirm is already described in the schema, so the description adds no parameter value.

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 verb (delete), the resource (share link bundle), and the consequence (permanent deletion, public link stops working, documents unaffected). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_share_link by specifying 'bundle', so an agent can select it correctly without ambiguity.

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 usage when you want to delete a bundle while preserving documents, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like delete_share_link or provide when-not conditions. The 'documents are not affected' hint gives some context, but no explicit routing to alternatives.

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