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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so 'Idempotent' in the description adds no new information. What the description does add beyond the structured fields is the authorization requirement — the caller must be the grantor/namespace owner — which is real behavioral context an agent needs before invoking. It does not say what happens to the namespace or grantee state after revocation, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 terse sentences with the role constraint front-loaded, followed by the idempotency note and the alternative-tool routing. Nothing is padded and no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with rich annotations, the description covers scope, authorization role, idempotency, and alternatives. It leaves unspecified what a failed revocation by a non-owner looks like, but that gap is minor at this complexity level.

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% for the single parameter ('UUID of the grant to revoke'), so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for grant_id, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (revoke) and resource (pending invitation or active grant) plus the actor role ('as the GRANTOR (owner of the shared namespace)'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling grant/invite tools like decline_invite and leave_grant.

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?

Explicitly routes the caller: grantors use this tool, while 'Grantees use decline_invite / leave_grant.' The condition that selects this tool versus its siblings is stated outright rather than left to inference.

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