Document Unshare

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

Despite annotations already marking destructive and idempotent hints, the description adds meaningful specifics: what remains intact (asset, other links, local downloads, global access), that repeats may error, and the success/failure return shape. It clarifies the idempotency nuance rather than contradicting it.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisites, alternatives, side-effect boundaries, idempotency behavior, and error modes. The most critical scoping information is front-loaded.

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 single-param mutating tool, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers permission context, preconditions, alternative tool routing, side effects, repeat-call behavior, and return/error semantics without requiring the agent to infer anything important.

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?

The input schema already fully documents document_id with a clear description, so the baseline is satisfied. The description adds extra value by explaining how to recognize invalid targets via shared=false in campaign_document_list, which helps the agent pick the correct 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one document share link from the configured campaign (DM only).' It clearly differentiates from sibling document_delete by explaining that unshare only revokes one link while deletion removes the asset everywhere.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: DM only, inspect campaign_document_list first, and avoid unsharing documents where shared=false. It also names document_delete as the correct alternative for full asset deletion.

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