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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth/session requirement (account session + staff scope) and the guardrails that cause the call to be rejected. It stops short of stating idempotency, whether the account itself is affected, or the failure response shape, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 sentences, front-loaded with audience and auth, then the action, then the constraints. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, effect, and the key rejection cases. Only the return/error behavior and any confirmation requirement are absent.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema does not explain accountId. The description implies accountId identifies the account whose platform role is removed, but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance; the self-evident name carries most of the meaning.

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 (remove/revoke) and a precise resource (an account's platform role), which cleanly separates it from the many other revoke siblings such as members_revoke, credentials_revoke, and support_revoke. The platform-level scope is explicit, so an agent can tell it apart from workspace-membership tools without opening the 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 clear context: platform staff only, requires the staff scope, and enumerates failure conditions (admins cannot revoke owners or admins; the last owner and bootstrap owners cannot be removed). It does not explicitly point to platform_staff_grant as the inverse operation, but the when-to-use conditions are well specified.

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