Delete Share

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is already covered; the description still earns credit by naming exactly what is destroyed — all recipients' access is revoked. It does not say whether the deletion is permanent/irreversible or what happens to recipients' local copies, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the outcome ("Stop sharing") before the mechanism. Every clause carries information.

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 an output schema present and destructiveHint covering safety, the description needs only to convey scope and effect, which it does. Minor gaps remain around irreversibility and any permission requirements, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 the share_id parameter is documented with the exact source call list_shares(direction="outgoing"). The description adds only the ownership qualifier ("this user created"), which is marginal beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("delete a share") plus the effect ("Stop sharing ... revoking all recipients' access") and an ownership scope ("this user created"). An agent can distinguish this from delete_file, delete_group, and create_share without opening the 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?

The phrase "a share this user created" implies a precondition (you can only remove your own shares), which is useful context for choosing this tool. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives like create_share or list_shares, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond that implied ownership constraint.

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