Stop sharing an album

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

The description discloses concrete behavioral consequences beyond the annotations: people who already opened the link lose access, while anything they saved or downloaded remains with them. This gives the agent a clear picture of external impact and is consistent with the readOnly, idempotent, and destructive hints.

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 concise sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second states the human-visible consequence. 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 mutation with one required parameter, useful annotations, and no output schema, this description is complete. The agent understands what will happen, what will not be destroyed, and how the account and album are specified via the schema.

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?

The input schema documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including album_id and account with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add much parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific action verb ('Revoke') and a specific resource ('an album's share link'), and it states the result ('make it private again'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like share_album and update_album.

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 makes the intended use case unmistakable: call this when an album should no longer be shared. It does not explicitly contrast it with share_album, but the semantics and sibling context make the boundary obvious.

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