Revoke qURL Token

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: re-revoking an inactive token returns an API error rather than being idempotent. It also clarifies the operation is scoped so sibling tokens stay active, which adds context not fully carried by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action, immediately gives the use case, names the alternative tool, and ends with constraints and error behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or 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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, annotations, and sibling tools present, the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to choose it, when not to, required IDs, and non-idempotent behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and both params have descriptions and patterns, so the schema already does most of the work. The description adds a slight semantic benefit by labeling resource_id as the parent and tying qurl_id to the token display ID, but it does not fundamentally go 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 has a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke one qURL token under a resource without revoking the whole resource.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from delete_qurl by scoping the action to a single token rather than the entire resource.

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 states when to use: when a single recipient/link should stop working but sibling qURLs on the same resource_id must remain active. It also names the alternative, delete_qurl, and the condition for using that instead, which gives an agent a clear routing decision.

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