End Agent Contact

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it stops sharing, verifies no grant remains, optionally archives while retaining records, and notes restore_data_type can undo the archive and that the peer's share remains unchanged.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence covering the primary action, verification, optional archive, undo path, and peer-share caveat. The final clause is slightly ambiguous, but there is 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?

Given the annotations, full schema coverage, and output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the mutation, archive option, undo path, and peer-share effect. It could be fuller about authorization or return behavior, but those are partly covered by structured fields.

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 100%, and the schema already describes data_type as an owned Event/<uuid> channel, peer_userid as the exact sole authorized peer UUID, and archive as retaining records. The description reinforces the single-peer Event-channel scope and peer-share behavior, but adds little parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: stopping sharing of an owned single-peer Event channel. The mention of verifying no grant remains and the restore_data_type undo path distinguishes it from generic share or data-type operations, though the contact-level framing could be slightly clearer.

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 implies usage by describing the action and an optional archive behavior, and it names restore_data_type as the undo alternative. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over sibling share or contact operations, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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