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

Annotations only give destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing exactly what is destroyed (the enrollment record, the waitlist place) and what is preserved (progress, graded work, issued certificates, the account and site membership). It also states the side-effect profile: no email is sent, and the exact return text.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its consequences before the routing alternatives and identifier guidance. It is one dense paragraph rather than scannable fragments, but nearly every clause carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description still supplies the return value ('Enrollment revoked.'), the error case, and the full side-effect envelope. Nothing an agent needs to call this mutation safely is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds sourcing context the schema lacks: identify the learner by email or userId 'as shown in enrollment_list rows' and get course ids from course_list. It does not restate the userId-wins precedence beyond what the schema already covers.

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 one learner's enrollment in a course) and immediately distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings: enrollment_update for changing expiry/waitlist/status and enrollment_create for re-enrolling. An agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Explicitly names alternatives and the conditions selecting them ('to change an expiry, waitlist place or status label instead, use enrollment_update'; re-enrolling later with enrollment_create). It also states the not-found condition for a learner who is not enrolled, and points to enrollment_list and course_list for obtaining identifiers.

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