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 fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond it: it does not say whether the revocation is reversible, whether it applies to all matching role/scope pairs, or what permissions the caller needs.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. However, that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

This is a destructive, permission-sensitive mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description needs to do more work. It omits the authorization requirements, the effect on the target member, and any confirmation or irreversibility note.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. 'Role x scope assignment' hints at what 'id' identifies and 'tenant member' hints at 'sub', but 'authorization' and the tenant_id default are entirely unexplained, leaving two of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 (revoke) plus a precisely-scoped resource (a role x scope assignment) and target (a tenant member), so an agent can distinguish it from revoke_invitation and withdraw_access_request. It does not explicitly name its inverse sibling grant_assignment, so it falls short of full sibling routing.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., that the assignment must exist), and no reference to the alternative grant_assignment for the reverse operation. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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