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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds real value beyond them: it defines the exact blast radius (all owner links revoked, future approvals/enrollments blocked) and clarifies what is NOT destroyed (existing installations remain). It stops short of describing response or side effects like notification.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, then the authorization requirement, then the preservation caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 the destructive scope, the permission requirement, and the preservation caveat. It is essentially complete, missing only routing guidance against alternative revoke tools.

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%, so partnerId, sessionId, and idempotencyKey are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or format, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Revokes an enrollment session and all of its owner links") and states the resulting scope (nothing more can be approved or enrolled from it). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like agency_enrollment_rotate_owner_link by covering the whole session and all owner links, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 states a prerequisite (session creator or agency owner/admin) and a caveat (already-enrolled installations are not removed), which helps an agent know it is the right call. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as agency_profile_revoke_invite or agency_installation_revoke_approval.

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