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

Beyond the destructive annotation, it discloses the practical effect: the agent cannot admit more paid work or keep using a stale saved permission. It also clarifies the return semantics ('revoked is false if the grant was missing or already revoked') and the human-owner authorization requirement.

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?

The description is front-loaded and compact: it states the action, effect, return behavior, and actor restriction in four short sentences. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition of structured fields.

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?

Given the output schema, the description does not need to explain return structure, and it still usefully notes the key false-revoked case. The single parameter is fully documented by schema, annotations cover destructiveness, and authorization plus operational effect are stated.

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%, so the single registration_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description refers to 'one linked agent' but adds no syntax, format, or lookup detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: withdraw one linked agent's spending grant. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling grant tools like agent_grant_set and agent_grant_list, and adds the actor scope 'verified human account owner.'

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 gives clear usage context: only the verified human account owner, and 'Person only.' It also explains the operational effect, but it does not explicitly name agent_grant_set as the alternative when the goal is to create or update a grant.

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