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

destructiveHint=true already flags the destructive nature, and the description adds genuinely new context: the cascade to delegated agents' access and the important caveat that previously saved copies remain separate data. It does not say whether re-granting is possible (presumably via invite_member), which keeps it from 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?

Two sentences with zero waste; the ownership condition is front-loaded and the data-retention caveat follows logically. Nothing redundant.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the ambiguous identity parameter and the lack of any note on what happens to the member's space content beyond private access.

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%, so the description must carry the burden and it does not. The biggest problem is 'human_owner_id': the caller is described as 'the Space owner', so it is unclear whether this parameter identifies the caller/owner or the member being revoked, and the description never resolves that ambiguity.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('revoke a member') plus a scope detail ('and their delegated agents' private access'). It is meaningfully distinct from invite_member and leave_space, though it does not name any sibling 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?

'As the Space owner' gives a real precondition for calling it. However, there is no explicit routing guidance versus neighbors like private_space_leave_space or private_agent_delegation_revoke, so the agent must infer the choice.

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