revoke_share_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully well: it discloses eventual-consistency timing (public link stops serving within ~30s due to edge cache) while the backing record dies immediately. It omits irreversibility/idempotency and authentication requirements, but the cache-vs-record distinction is real behavioral value.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the observable effect. Every clause earns its place with no 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the runtime effect well but leaves the optional projectId undocumented, gives no error/failure behavior for an invalid or already-revoked token, and states no prerequisites. Just enough to call it, not enough to call it confidently.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Token' is only loosely named as a share token with no format hint, and the optional projectId parameter is never mentioned anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Revoke a share token') that is unambiguously distinct from the sibling create_share_link and list_share_links. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb — you call this on a token you previously created — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no precondition (e.g. must own the link), and no guidance on how it relates to siblings like delete_webhook or revoke_member. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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