Delete share link

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the required permission scopes, the delegated-token authorization model, and the confirm=true gating for the mutation, plus what is actually destroyed (the URL is revoked, the media itself is implied to survive). Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld, but the auth and recovery semantics here are additional and genuinely needed.

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 behavioral core is front-loaded in the first two sentences and the permission block is clearly delimited. The trailing boilerplate about sharing access, notifying people, and provider charges is generic and only loosely relevant to revoking a link, which keeps it from a 5.

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 a full schema, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies what is missing: permissions needed, confirm gating, and post-deletion recovery. The only ambiguity is the boilerplate warning about notifications/charges that doesn't obviously apply to this operation.

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 account, confirm, and media_id are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the confirm=true requirement for this mutation and adds no new parameter syntax or format detail, 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 and resource ('Deletes the share link for a media') and immediately clarifies the effect ('revoking the URL'), which distinguishes it from delete_media, delete_sharing_customizations, or update_share_link without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear invocation context: confirm=true is required, and it explains the recovery path ('A new share link can be created later ... by calling the show or update endpoint again'). It stops short of naming the sibling tools (update_share_link / get_share_link) or stating when this should not be used instead of them.

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