Revoke Document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally; the description usefully clarifies that the document is preserved while its sharing is disabled. It stops short of saying what is actually lost (existing public links being invalidated, external viewers losing access) or how repeat calls behave given idempotentHint=false. No contradiction with annotations, but 'without deleting' sits in mild tension with destructiveHint and could be read as reassuring.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the disambiguation clause. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the destructive/idempotency signals. The one gap is the re-publish path: an agent revoking sharing has no stated route back via publish_doc, which matters for a reversible-looking operation.

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% and both parameters (docId, workspaceId) are documented inline, including when workspaceId may be omitted. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (disable public sharing) plus the resource (a document) and states the key non-effect (the document is not deleted). This distinguishes it cleanly from delete_doc and trash_doc without requiring the agent to open either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from delete_doc with a stated condition ('only when the document itself should be removed'). It does not, however, mention publish_doc as the counterpart for re-enabling sharing, so the reverse direction is left to inference.

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