invoices_share_links_revoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'permanently inaccessible' which conveys irreversibility, which is good. However, it doesn't disclose whether auth/permissions are required, what happens to the returned response, or whether companyId contexts matter for revocation. A 'revoke' action is inherently destructive, and the description should more explicitly flag irreversible loss.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The effect (permanent revocation), the key input (linkId) and its source (invoices_share_links_list) are all packed efficiently upfront.

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 3-param tool with a clear destructive action and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly warns of permanence. However, given no annotations and that this is a destructive mutation, a bit more behavioral context (e.g., whether the revoke fails if the invoice is shared elsewhere, or auth expectations) would improve completeness. The sibling tool invoices_share_links_create provides the complementary action context.

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%, so all three parameters are documented. The description adds the key cross-reference that linkId comes from invoices_share_links_list, reinforcing its provenance. companyId's override semantics are already in the schema. The description adds marginal context beyond the schema, which 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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Revoke/delete a share link for an invoice') and clearly conveys a destructive, permanent effect ('permanently inaccessible'). It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like invoices_share_links_list/create through the revoke action, though the title already conveys this clearly.

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 implies usage (calling after invoices_share_links_list to get linkId) and notes the effect is permanent, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or alternatives. It does give a helpful pointer to the related list tool for the linkId source.

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