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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and not read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is the authentication requirement ('Needs key or sign-in'), which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it omits what happens when the right isn't held, whether revocation is confirmed, and any side effects on existing tokens.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the actor and action, then the auth requirement. No padding, though the telegraphic fragments read like notes rather than a sentence and could carry slightly more detail at no cost.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description covers the actor role and auth but not failure modes, confirmation behavior, or the meaning of the right values. An agent can attempt the call but cannot predict outcomes on edge cases.

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 parameter burden. It only clarifies that 'key' is an authentication credential; it says nothing about the 'right' enum values (code.host, source.write, compute.submit) or the expected 'space' identifier format, leaving the most non-obvious parameter undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('remove a right from the space'), which is clearly the inverse of sibling space_grant. It doesn't explicitly name space_grant or distinguish itself from space_remove/space_delete/permission_revoke, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Owner or admin' establishes a permission prerequisite, and 'remove a right' implies the usage context (revoking previously granted access). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over space_grant, space_remove, or permission_revoke, so selection relies on the agent inferring from the verb.

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