delete_sharings_by_user_id

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide: the destructiveHint already warns about deletion, idempotentHint and readOnlyHint are encoded in structured fields. The description does not clarify what is actually removed, reversibility, or authorization needs, so it adds no transparency beyond the annotation values.

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 very compact and front-loaded, with no filler. The endpoint line and parameter definition are enough for a one-parameter tool, though the content could still be clarified.

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?

The definition fails to specify what a 'Share' is, whether delete removes one share or all shares for the user, and what happens after deletion. Although there is an output schema and annotations, the description's terse wording leaves too much meaning implicit.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the Args block provides the first semantic definition of user_id by calling it 'the unique identifier of the user'. This is meaningful, but it leaves ambiguity about the user's role in the share (sharer vs share) and what exactly the deletion applies to.

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 clear verb and resource ('Remove Share') and includes the HTTP path DELETE /sharings/{userId}, so the action is recognizable. It does not add enough detail to explicitly differentiate it from siblings like update_sharings_by_user_id beyond the name and path.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exceptions, and no mention of prerequisites or side conditions. The description only restates what endpoint is called rather than the appropriate call context.

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