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

The description adds write-tier approval behavior not present in the annotations: first use may require manager approval, from-now-on vs just-once approval semantics, and the instruction not to re-ask in chat. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and provides useful operational context beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact: one clear purpose sentence plus a bracketed operational note. It is front-loaded and does not repeat schema field descriptions, though the approval note is slightly dense.

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 simple three-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate. It adds the key approval nuance and the outcome of the operation is clear, even though return values are not described.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (path, user_email, companyId) with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond saying the action is about revoking access to a file or folder, so it does not meaningfully supplement the schema.

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 first sentence states a precise action ('Revoke a user's access') and a specific resource ('shared knowledge file or folder'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like share_knowledge (granting access) and delete_knowledge/restore_knowledge (deleting or restoring the item itself).

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 description provides an explicit trigger ('Call it on the first clear ask') and approval-flow guidance, but it does not compare this tool to siblings such as delete_knowledge, restore_knowledge, or share_knowledge. An agent has to infer when unsharing is the right operation rather than being told when not to use it.

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