revoke_share

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's value-add is the permission requirement (shares:write) and idempotency support, plus 'immediately' signalling no grace period or undo. That is meaningful operational context beyond the annotation. It stops short of saying what happens to existing downloads or whether revocation is reversible.

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 short sentences, action first, constraints second. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive nature plus auth requirement are covered. However, for a destructive two-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the undefined share_id and idempotency_key handling leave the definition only minimally sufficient.

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. The description never explains what share_id refers to (share token vs numeric id) or how idempotency_key should be supplied and reused across retries. Mentioning 'supports idempotency' gestures at the parameter without giving usable semantics, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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: 'Revoke a share URL immediately.' An agent knows this removes a share. It does not differentiate from sibling revoke_link, so an agent must infer whether a share and a link are the same object, which is a real ambiguity in this toolset.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb. There is no statement of when to revoke a share versus revoke_link, or when to use create_share/list_shares first to confirm the target. The 'immediately' qualifier hints at urgency but gives no decision criteria.

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