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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two behavioral facts: the required caller role and that the effect is immediate. It says nothing about reversibility, whether an audit trail or reason is required, or what happens to the underlying grant afterward.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the audience and states the action without waste. Nothing extraneous, though it is terse enough that it borders on under-specification.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented required parameters, the description is too thin. It omits reversibility, authorization prerequisites, and any guidance on supplying the id.

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?

Both parameters (workspaceId, id) are UUIDs with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains neither. The term 'support access' weakly hints that id identifies the support grant, but the agent gets no explicit mapping of either parameter.

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 and resource ('end active SAGOT support access'), which clearly separates it from support_approve, support_deny, and support_list. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the broader family of revoke tools (members_revoke, platform_access_end), so it stops short of a 5.

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 invocation context is implied: a workspace admin ending an already-active support grant. The role constraint ('Workspace admins') is useful, but there is no explicit when-not or pointer to alternatives such as support_deny for rejecting a pending request.

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