revoke_file_request

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description discloses the permission needed (shares:write), that in-flight uploads are rejected, and idempotency support. It does not state what happens to files already uploaded or errors on a nonexistent request_id, but the annotation burden is mostly covered.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediate effect, then prerequisites. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers permissions, side effects, and retry behavior. Only the request_id format is left undocumented.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that idempotency_key enables safe retries, but says nothing about the format or source of request_id beyond the resource it identifies.

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?

A specific verb and resource are stated: 'Close a file request link.' The word 'file request' separates it from revoke_link and revoke_share, though no sibling is explicitly named as an alternative.

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 consequence ('uploads in progress are rejected') points to when the tool is appropriate, but the description never says when to prefer it over revoke_link, revoke_share, or list_file_requests, leaving routing implicit.

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