revoke_previews

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the links are database-backed capabilities unaffected by token/key rotation, which is non-obvious. But it omits whether the expiry is reversible, what permissions are required, and what the operation returns (the output schema partly covers the latter).

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 sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the clarifying note about token revocation. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema already present, the description covers purpose, the non-obvious behavioral caveat, and the scope distinction adequately. Return-value explanation is correctly delegated to the output schema; only permission/irreversibility details are missing.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'for an artifact (or one version)' implicitly conveys that version narrows the scope to a single version while omitting it targets the whole artifact, which is meaningful. It adds no format or identifier details for artifact_id.

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 states a precise verb+resource: expiring private /p/ preview links for an artifact or a single version. That is far more specific than the sibling verbs (share, unshare, delete) and an agent can tell what is being acted upon. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with unshare/delete, which would be needed for a 5.

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 gives a clear conditional reason to invoke: token revocation and signing-key rotation do NOT expire these links, so call this explicitly. That is actionable context for when the tool is necessary. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or name the alternative tool for related revocation needs.

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