invoices_share_links_revoke

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description adds the concrete consequence — the link becomes 'permanently inaccessible'. It doesn't say whether the record is deleted or merely deactivated, or whether access is cut off immediately, which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences, the destructive outcome front-loaded and the prerequisite second. No filler and nothing that duplicates structured fields verbatim.

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 three fully documented parameters, rich destructive/idempotent annotations, and no output schema to explain, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. A note on whether revocation is recoverable would close the remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters including the companyId override are already documented. The description reinforces the linkId source but adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Revoke/delete') and resource ('share link for an invoice'), and the effect is unambiguous. It also names the sibling tool that supplies the identifier, which separates it cleanly from invoices_share_links_list and invoices_share_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 description tells the agent when to reach for it (removing a share link) and explicitly directs it to invoices_share_links_list to obtain the linkId, which is the main prerequisite. It stops short of any exclusion or 'do not use when' guidance, but the operation has no real alternative in the sibling set.

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