Delete share link

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the revocation is immediate, holders lose access at once, and the document itself is unaffected. This gives the agent a clear safety-relevant mental model of the operation's side effects.

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 convey the core action and its key side effects with no redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded in the first phrase.

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 action with annotations already covering the read/write and destructive nature, the description provides enough context about the immediate effect and non-effect on the document. It stops just short of being fully complete by not naming the sibling alternative for bundle revocation, but this is a minor 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the parameter, but it does not explicitly explain that id is the identifier of the share link to revoke. That inference is easy from the tool name and action, and the single integer parameter is simple, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 clearly states the action ('Revoke a share link immediately'), the resource (a share link), and the immediate effect on holders of the URL. It also distinguishes itself from document deletion by explicitly noting 'the document itself is untouched.'

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 conveys that this tool is for immediate revocation of a single share link, which implies its use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of the closely related sibling delete_share_link_bundle, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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