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

Far beyond the annotations: it discloses idempotency, that the removal is team-wide and permanent, cross-session reach, the scope limit (never a teammate's rule), and the fallback path where the row is marked disputed instead of removed. The only gap is why the destructiveHint write can silently degrade to a non-destructive flag — the sequencing of that branch is dense but present.

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-loaded with purpose and when-to-use, and every sentence carries new information. However, heavy parenthetical nesting and stacked clauses make the later half slower to parse than necessary.

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?

Complete for a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema: outcomes are spelled out (ok on re-revoke, disputed on failure, candidate list on ambiguous match), so an agent knows what to expect from the response without a schema.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description's parameter content largely restates it (id preferred, contentMatch when the id scrolled away). It adds one useful rule not obvious from the schema — never invent an id — but otherwise the schema carries the semantics.

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 ("Revoke a learning you previously recorded") and implicitly contrasts with harbor_record_learning, which it names as the producer of the id. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling write tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions with quoted user corrections, an ordered preference (use `id`, fall back to `contentMatch`, never invent an id), and the boundary case where revocation is impossible (admin-approved or no publish permission). Nothing about when to call it is left to inference.

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