Revoke a public share link

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true), so the description's job is to add context. The description clarifies that revocation is immediate ('no confirmation needed') and that the action only reduces access, which is useful behavioral insight. It does not repeat the annotation but adds nuance about the nature of the change.

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, tightly written with no wasted words. The first sentence explains the action, and the second provides critical behavioral context about confirmation and access scope. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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?

Given the tool has a single required parameter with a clear schema, annotations that cover destructiveness, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the effect, the lack of confirmation, and the access direction. There is nothing missing for an agent to use this 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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'token_id' described as a UUID from 'list_share_tokens'. The description does not detail the parameter further, which is acceptable since the schema is complete. The description adds no extra parameter info, but the baseline is 3 and the schema does the heavy lifting; the description's brief addition about the tool's action slightly raises the score.

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 tool revokes a share link, making the recipe no longer readable through it. It uses a specific verb ('Revokes') and resource ('share link'), and the title 'Revoke a public share link' reinforces this. This distinguishes it well from siblings like 'create_share_token' and 'list_share_tokens'.

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 explicitly states 'Needs no confirmation', which guides the agent about the tool's immediate effect without additional steps. It also notes 'this narrows access rather than widening it', helping the agent understand the tool is about restriction, not expansion. However, it does not explicitly mention when to not use it or name alternative tools for opposite actions.

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