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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful authorization context, but it does not elaborate on the concrete effect of revocation, failure behavior, or what access is removed.

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 two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the authorization condition immediately following. There is no redundant or wasted language.

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?

Given a simple two-parameter schema with full field descriptions and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides the essential missing context: authorization requirements. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor room for richer behavioral detail.

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 100%, and both grant_id and workspace_id are documented directly in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke an active workspace grant.' It is clear what the tool does, though there are no directly comparable sibling grant-revocation tools to differentiate against in the provided sibling list.

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 gives an important authorization prerequisite: the caller must hold the revoke_grant scope in the same workspace or be the human delegator. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives or describe exclusions, so usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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