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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's added value is the disclosure that result access is revoked while backend jobs keep running. That is genuine non-obvious behavioral context an agent could not infer from the annotations, though permanence/irreversibility of the revocation is not stated.

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 important caveat immediately after. Nothing is padded and nothing repeated from the title or annotations.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main side effect and its key exception, which is adequate at a minimum. It still leaves open whether revocation is permanent, what happens to stored results, and how the token is sourced, which an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter workspace_token, and the description only refers vaguely to 'this workspace'. It does not say what the token is, where an agent obtains it, or whether it identifies an active session, leaving the sole parameter effectively undocumented.

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 ('Revoke') and resource ('workspace') plus the scope of what is revoked ('its result access'), which clearly positions it as the inverse of create_workspace. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools or contrasting with non-destructive reads like get_analysis.

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?

There is a useful negative condition ('Does not cancel already submitted backend jobs'), which tells the agent this is not a job-cancellation tool. However, there is no positive guidance about when to close a workspace, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for job cancellation.

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