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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Revoke' implies a mutation, but it doesn't say whether revocation is reversible, whether the grant_token is consumed or invalidated, what permissions are required, or what happens to in-flight polls. The sandbox note adds environment context but no behavioral detail.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the sandbox caveat secondary. No wasted wording, though the sandbox line is generic boilerplate that doesn't advance understanding of this specific tool.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and half its parameters undocumented needs to explain reversibility, authorization, and expected result. The description supplies none of that, leaving an agent unable to predict the consequences of calling it.

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 coverage is 50%: grant_token is documented in the schema, but grant_id is completely undocumented in both places. The description says nothing about parameter format, sourcing, or the role of the token in authorization, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Revoke an active data grant on behalf of the user'. This clearly separates it from moltbound_request_grant and moltbound_grant_status, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to revoke versus when to use moltbound_grant_status, moltbound_poll_grant, or moltbound_request_grant to inspect or create grants. The only extra sentence is a sandbox notice, which is a constraint, not usage routing.

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