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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by stating that revocation blocks search, originals, Markdown, OKF and ZIP downloads even with an existing session or key, and that responses are private/no-store. It omits what happens to concurrent sessions and error/partial-failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 action is correctly front-loaded in sentence one, but the body is a wall of generic sharing-model policy (collection grants, other owners' bases, publishing, org API keys) that is tangential to unsharing a base team. Several sentences do not earn their place for this specific tool, and the structure reads as pasted platform documentation.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return and failure semantics, and it does not say what a successful revocation returns or how errors surface. It does adequately cover the access-model effects, so it is minimally viable for a one-parameter destructive mutation but leaves gaps.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The 64-character resource ID returned by this API'), so the schema carries the burden. The description only alludes to 'your base' and adds no format, sourcing, or validation semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 opening sentence 'Withdraw the team grant from your base' gives a specific verb (withdraw) and resource (team grant on a base), distinct from the collection-oriented sibling unshare_collection_team. However, it never names the inverse operation share_base_team or otherwise explicitly routes between siblings, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no exclusions, and no comparison to share_base_team or unshare_collection_team. The one prerequisite-like sentence ('initial grant requires the owner's session with origin and CSRF checks') concerns granting, not this revocation, so it does not guide invocation of this tool.

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