box_remove_shared_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, reversibility, or impact on existing viewers. The text only states the action without any consequences, which is insufficient for a destructive/removal operation.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for the minimal content it conveys.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out critical context for a mutating tool: how to choose between path and itemId, whether any permissions are required, and what happens to existing shared access. The provided text is too thin to ensure correct invocation in all cases.

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 100%, so the baseline applies: the description need not repeat parameter details. It does not add semantics beyond the schema, though the tool's purpose implies that itemId/path and itemType identify the target item.

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 action verb 'Remove' with the resource 'shared link' and the scope 'file or folder', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like box_share_content and box_update_shared_link, since removal is a semantically different operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not contrast with box_update_shared_link or box_share_content, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an existing shared link. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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