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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description usefully specifies the exact impact: only the login is destroyed, while the contact, processes, and proposal remain intact. It also discloses the authentication/authorization context: omitting target_user_id acts on the caller's own account, and target_user_id is an admin-only path.

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, each carrying distinct information: the action, the non-destructive scope, and the default targeting rule. The key consequence ("só o login deixa de existir") is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema destructive tool, the description covers impact, scoping, and the admin path well. It is slightly incomplete on the email/contact_id precedence and on behavior when the contact has no portal access, both of which matter for a destructive call.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description adds real semantics on top by explaining what omitting target_user_id does (operates on the authenticated account). It does not clarify precedence when both email and contact_id are supplied, nor what happens when neither is supplied (0 required params).

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Remove o acesso de um contato ao portal do cliente"), and its effect is clear. It clearly implies the inverse of create_portal_access and list_portal_access, though it never names them explicitly.

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 only usage guidance is implicit: "Sem target_user_id, opera na PRÓPIA conta autenticada" defines default scoping and the admin path through target_user_id. The description does not say when to choose revoke instead of create_portal_access or list_portal_access, nor what to do when a contact has no existing access.

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