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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the eventual-consistency behavior ('stops receiving the mod on its next get_mods / task delivery') and the authorization requirements, neither of which appears in the annotations.

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, purpose front-loaded, effect second, auth third. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies effect timing and authorization. It is nearly complete, missing only whether the underlying mod is deleted versus just unlinked and how the revoke can be undone.

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 only 50%: grant_id is documented in the schema, but agent_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description says nothing about either parameter's meaning, 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 ('Remove a grant') and its effect, so the antonym relationship with grant_mod is obvious. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it lands at clear-but-no-sibling-differentiation rather than 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?

Usage is implied ('remove a grant' to stop the agent receiving the mod) and the AUTH clause tells the agent who may call it. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no naming of alternatives such as grant_mod or get_mods beyond incidental references.

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