Stop a client review link from working by passing its ID, immediately cutting off public access to shared reviews.
Stop a client review link working at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The link id, from list_review_links |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that revocation takes effect 'at once', which is useful immediacy context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe permissions, side effects, or reversibility.
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 no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the essential action and timing.
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 simple, single-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety traits and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention whether the link can be restored or what happens to existing feedback, but the core behavior is clear.
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 schema already documents the single 'id' parameter with a pointer to list_review_links. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb ('Stop ... working') and resource ('client review link'), clearly distinguishing this tool from create_review_link and list_review_links by virtue of the destructive action. An agent can immediately understand the tool's purpose 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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.