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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two valuable traits: the caller must be the owner, and the effect is immediate. It omits reversibility (can access be re-granted?), error behavior, and whether the agent itself is deleted or only its account access. Adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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, zero filler, and the owner-only constraint plus immediate effect are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter destructive operation, the description covers auth, scope, and timing. It still leaves gaps on irreversibility, re-grant behavior, and the meaning of the id, none of which are covered by annotations or an output schema.

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 0% and the single required 'id' parameter is never mentioned in the description. 'An agent's access' weakly implies the id identifies the agent, but no format or resolution guidance is given, so the description does not 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 (remove access) and resource (an agent), with the scope 'to this account' qualifying what is being revoked. It is clearly distinguishable from agents.list, the only real sibling, though it doesn't name it. Clear but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

'Owner only' signals a precondition for invoking, which is useful routing context. However, it never states when to revoke versus alternatives (e.g. disabling, rotating tokens) or what happens if the caller is not the owner. Usage is only implied.

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