Turn the client page off

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. The description adds real context beyond them — the effect is scoped to anyone holding the URL and they 'see nothing afterwards' — but it leaves reversibility ambiguous: 'turns off' suggests it can be re-enabled, while the tool is named delete_share_link and flagged destructive.

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, no filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the consequence immediately after.

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 one-parameter destructive toggle with rich annotations and no output schema, this is largely sufficient: the agent knows the target, the effect, and that it is destructive and idempotent. Only the reversibility question and any permission prerequisite remain open.

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% with a single required project_id that includes a format pattern, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about project_id and does not clarify whether the project id is the owner of the link.

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 and resource: turning the project's client page link off. It is unambiguous what object is affected, but it never names the inverse sibling create_share_link or get_share_link, so sibling differentiation is only implicit through the shared 'share link' concept.

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?

Usage is implied — you call it when you want the client page to stop being visible to link holders. There are no explicit exclusions, no prerequisites (ownership/permission requirements), and no mention that create_share_link is how you restore or rotate the link.

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