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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail the annotations do not: the revocation 'takes effect on their next request', clarifying timing rather than immediate session cut-off. It omits error behavior (unknown email, owner removal) and whether access can simply be re-shared.

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 with the action front-loaded and the timing caveat second; nothing extraneous and no repetition of the title.

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 destructive mutation with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description plus structured fields give an agent enough to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain around failure cases and the re-grant path.

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 100%, and the schema itself explains both parameters, including the constraint that the owner cannot be removed. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Revoke') plus the affected resource ('a collaborator's access'), which pairs clearly with the sibling share_campaign. It stops short of naming the inverse tool, but the action is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like list_campaign_access.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the inverse operation (share_campaign) for re-granting access, and no prerequisites such as needing the campaign owner or the collaborator already existing. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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