doc_unshare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose an important conditional side effect: if neither grant nor share_token is provided, all tokens of the document are revoked. However, it does not mention irreversibility, authorization requirements, or how agent_id and from_agent_id affect the revocation behavior.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and condition. It earns its place, though the extreme brevity causes ambiguity around 'grant' and 'os dois'.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It does convey the main conditional behavior, but omits parameter mappings, usage context, and detailed effects, so an agent would struggle to invoke it correctly in many cases.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies share_token and the all-token fallback. It never explains agent_id or from_agent_id, and uses the term 'grant' which does not appear in the schema, leaving the agent unable to reliably map parameters for the intended operation.

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 concrete action ('revoga') and resource ('grant ou share_token'), and explains the fallback of revoking all document tokens. This distinguishes it from doc_share, but 'grant' is not a named parameter in the schema, creating some ambiguity about what exactly is being revoked.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like doc_release or doc_claim. The description implies it is the inverse of doc_share, but it does not explicitly state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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