mdshare

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent operations, but the description adds valuable context: it specifies admin access requirements and clarifies conditional parameter usage ('key' optional for local documents), enhancing behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, followed by prerequisites and conditional logic in three concise sentences, with no wasted words—each sentence adds essential information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, permissions, and parameter conditions well, but could slightly enhance completeness by mentioning potential error cases or confirming idempotency (though hinted in annotations).

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic context by explaining the relationship between 'document_id' and 'key' (used for admin key lookup) and when 'key' is optional, providing practical usage insights beyond schema definitions.

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 verb ('revoke') and resource ('share link'), specifies the outcome ('making it permanently inactive'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_links' (used to find tokens) and 'generate_link' (its opposite).

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use list_links first to find the token') and when not to use it ('Requires admin access'), and implies alternatives by referencing sibling tools like 'list_links' for preparation.

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