external_data_share_revoke

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's verb 'revoke' is consistent with them (no contradiction). However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations: it doesn't say whether revocation is irreversible, what happens to the external consumer's access, or whether a confirmation/response is returned.

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 maximally compact — five words, action verb first, zero filler. It is front-loaded and readable, though minimal enough that it borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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 destructive operation (destructiveHint=true) with no output schema, this single-clause description is inadequate. It omits side effects, how to locate the externalDataShareId, and what the agent should expect after calling it; an agent would have to infer the workflow from the sibling tool names.

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 all three required parameters (workspaceId, itemId, externalDataShareId) individually documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The free-text description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Revoke') and resource ('external data share'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling operations like external_data_share_list, external_data_share_get, and external_data_share_create. It is clear but terse, leaving the exact meaning of 'revoke' (versus delete or unshare) unstated, so it stops short of a 5.

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 versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as obtaining the externalDataShareId via external_data_share_list first. The description is a single clause with no context about the typical workflow (e.g., list shares, then revoke the target one).

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