delete_share

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, and idempotentHint: true. The description adds meaningful context by stating 'The link stops working immediately for everyone holding it,' which clarifies the immediate impact. It also clarifies the scope distinction (page vs. collective). No contradiction with annotations; it complements them.

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 two sentences long with zero fluff. It front-loads the core action and immediate effect, then provides the parameter-specific guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple destructive operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (immediate effect, page/collective distinction). Annotations cover destructive and idempotent hints. The description does not mention failure scenarios or prerequisites, but these are not critical for correct invocation. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 67% (token and pageId have descriptions, collectiveId does not). The description adds value by clarifying that token comes from list_shares and by explaining the pageId usage. However, collectiveId is not explained in the description, though its purpose (identifying the collective) is fairly obvious from the name and required status. Overall, the description enhances parameter understanding 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 clearly states the action ('Revoke a public share link') and the resource (share link). It distinguishes between page shares and Collective-wide shares, which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_share, update_share, and list_shares. The immediate effect is also stated, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance for the pageId parameter ('Pass pageId for a page share; omit it for the Collective-wide share'), which is a key decision point. However, it does not mention alternatives (e.g., update_share for modifying a share) or when not to use this tool. It implies token retrieval from list_shares but does not explicitly state that. Overall, clear context without exclusions.

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