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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that effects take hold on the next call of everyone reached, that release_hold makes covered material erasable again, and that retire transfers ownership to the nearest living ancestor, purges drafts, and gives a subordinate a distill_window_s before ending. These are non-obvious destructive consequences the annotations (destructiveHint=true) only flag generically.

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?

Front-loads the general purpose, then uses a compact per-action list. Dense but every clause earns its place; the retire sentence is long but packs distinct, necessary consequences.

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 an 8-parameter, four-action mutation tool with an output schema and annotations already present, the description covers the consequences of each action adequately. It leaves return-value details to the output schema and idempotency semantics to the schema, which is appropriate.

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 each parameter's description already names its action (e.g. hold_id for release_hold, share_id for withdraw_share). The description's 'each action takes the arguments its line names' adds a mapping but no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema carries, so the baseline 3 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 opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Take back access or a protection') and then enumerates four distinct actions (withdraw, withdraw_share, release_hold, retire), each with its own object. This clearly separates it from siblings like access_grant and access_read.

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?

Each action line names the scenario it applies to (withdraw a filed request, take back a share, release a legal hold, end yourself/an identity below you), so an agent knows which action to pick. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or when NOT to use the tool.

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