revoke_share_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains what gets destroyed (one share link) and what remains unaffected (the page, all other links). The word 'kill' strongly implies irreversibility, though explicit mention of permanence or permission requirements would have made it fully transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It starts with the core action, then provides the essential scope clarification. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the scope of effect, and the social context. It does not mention edge cases like already-revoked links or error behavior, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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 schema description fully covers the single parameter, stating that share_link_id is 'The id from create_share_link or list_share_links.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Kill') and specific resource ('one share link'), making the operation immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from page-level or bulk operations by stating that 'the page and every other link keep working.'

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 conveys the exact scenario: 'cut off one recipient without re-issuing to the rest.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like set_expiry or exclude them.

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