eda_sys_file_system_revoke_object_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., the URL becomes invalid, resources are freed, behavior for invalid URLs).

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 short and front-loaded with the signature, but it includes redundant lines ('吊销 ObjectURL' and 'remarks: 吊销指定的 ObjectURL') and version metadata that add little value.

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 resource-revocation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description should explain the lifecycle context (e.g., URLs created by create_object_url should be revoked here) and failure behavior. These are 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?

The signature line 'revokeObjectURL(url: string)' adds the specific parameter name and type, which the generic args array in the schema does not provide. It does not explain where the URL comes from, but the core parameter semantics are covered.

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 the specific action 'revokeObjectURL' and its object ('吊销 ObjectURL'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the sibling create_object_url, but the revoke/create contrast is clear from the verb.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool, such as pairing it with create_object_url to release URLs, or any caveats. The description only says it revokes a URL and provides no when-not-to-use or alternative routing.

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