Revoke shared link

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what gets destroyed: the URL's ability to grant access. It does not contradict annotations and clarifies the consequence of the destructive action, though it stops short of stating permanence or reversibility.

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 a single sentence that fronts the action and the effect with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly efficient.

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 operation with annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description is largely complete. It lacks only details about return value or behavior on invalid URLs, which are not covered by schema or output schema, but these are minor for this tool's simplicity.

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% and the single parameter 'url' is already described as 'The shared link URL to revoke.' The description's reference to URL adds no new format, validation, or example information, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Disable') and resource ('shared link') and states the concrete consequence ('URL no longer grants access'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like dropbox_create_shared_link, dropbox_list_shared_links, and dropbox_get_shared_link_metadata, which cover creation, listing, and metadata rather than revocation.

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 purpose statement implies the use case (when a shared link should be disabled), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool, when not to, or mention alternatives. There are no exclusion conditions or routing to sibling tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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