Delete share link

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

Annotations already declare destructive and open-world behavior, but the description adds substantial context: exact permission requirements, delegate scope behavior, the confirm=true prerequisite, and consequences ('May share access, notify people or incur provider charges'). This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then uses structured sections for permissions and requirements. The final sentence is somewhat vague boilerplate, but overall the information earns its place for a mutation tool with auth complexity.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key needs: what it deletes, reversibility, permission requirements, confirm prerequisite, and side effects. Nothing critical is missing 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions confirm=true, but the schema already contains that requirement. No additional semantics are added for account or media_id beyond what the schema provides.

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') plus the effect ('revoking the URL'), and distinguishes from siblings like get_share_link and update_share_link by noting the link can be recreated via those endpoints.

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?

Clearly describes the action and its reversibility, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over update_share_link or get_share_link. The context is clear enough for an agent to know this is the revocation operation.

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