Revoke a booking's guest links

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context: required scopes (bookings:write, luca:queue_ops), that an Idempotency-Key is mandatory with server-side generation as fallback, and that data is redacted. It stops short of saying whether revocation is reversible or what happens to already-used links, but the additions are substantive.

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 destructive action and its bulk scope are front-loaded in one sentence, followed by compact structured lines for endpoint, scopes, idempotency, and workspace. Every line carries information; the 'data sensitivity: redacted' fragment is the only piece of ambiguous boilerplate.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it does cover auth scopes, idempotency, workspace targeting, and destructive scope. The remaining gap is outcome semantics—whether previously issued or already-accepted links are also invalidated—but the definition is sufficient to call the 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 75% and the three optional parameters (workspaceId, workspaceSlug, idempotencyKey) each carry their own schema description. The description restates the idempotency-key behavior and workspace override without adding format or precedence rules beyond the schema. Adequate at the baseline, but not additive.

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?

First sentence states a specific verb ('kill'/'revoke'), resource ('guest links'), and scope ('every outstanding ... on a booking at once'), and the DELETE endpoint line pins the exact operation. This clearly separates it from the sibling luca_bookings_guest_links_create.

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 bulk nature ('every outstanding guest link at once') implies when this tool is appropriate, and the workspace-override line tells the agent how to target a non-default workspace. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus create/update, and no stated preconditions (e.g. what happens if the booking already started). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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