delete_share_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention consequences of deletion, permission requirements, or whether the action is reversible, leaving an agent without critical safety information for a destructive operation.

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 concise sentence with no filler words, allowing an agent to grasp the core purpose quickly. However, it is minimalistic and could be considered under-specified, but it does not waste words.

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 delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention irreversibility, effect on access, or any error conditions, which are important for safe invocation. The tool's simplicity does not excuse missing critical context.

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% with a single 'id' parameter described as 'ID of the resource.' The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already fully documents the parameter, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (share link), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like delete_share, but the specific resource name prevents confusion with other deletion tools.

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 provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description merely restates the action without contextual cues such as 'use get_share_link first to confirm the ID' or 'this is irreversible'.

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