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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds useful scope ('one exact grant owned by the authenticated workspace'), but it does not discuss consequences such as irreversibility or effects on the collaborator's access beyond revocation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, placing the verb and core resource first. Every phrase ('one exact', 'owned by the authenticated workspace') earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, has annotations covering destructive and idempotent behavior, and has an output schema, so the description can stay short. However, it leaves an agent without an explicit differentiator from revoke_collaboration_invitation and does not clarify the semantics of idempotencyKey, making it only minimally complete.

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 compensate, but it only hints at grantId via 'one exact collaboration grant' and says nothing about idempotencyKey, its format, or its role. The schema's field names and types are the only real semantic source, which is insufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('collaboration grant') and adds the scope 'owned by the authenticated workspace.' This clearly distinguishes the action from related sibling tools such as revoke_collaboration_invitation.

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?

It implies the tool is for an existing, exact collaboration grant rather than a pending invitation, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over revoke_collaboration_invitation or other alternatives. The context is present only by inference from the wording.

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