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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful actor context for who can revoke, but does not explain permission requirements, side effects, or whether revocation is reversible.

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 a single sentence that ends in an ellipsis, making it feel truncated rather than deliberately concise. It is not front-loaded with an explicit imperative such as 'Revoke a permission,' so the structure is weaker than it could be.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with one required id parameter, the description leaves critical details unspecified, especially what id identifies and what exactly is revoked. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the truncated description does not complete the parameter context.

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?

There is one required parameter, id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never clarifies whether id refers to a permission, proposal, grant, or other object. The role context only weakly implies the identifier's domain, leaving the agent to guess.

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 gives a specific action and resource: taking back a granted right, giving it up, or withdrawing a pending item. The actor roles (owner, receiver, proposer) help distinguish the scenarios. It stops short of naming how it differs from sibling tools such as permission_decide or permissions_pending.

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?

The three actor scenarios imply when revocation applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus permission_decide, permissions_pending, or other revoke tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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