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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the effect is not instantaneous, and a visitor's next page request within a few seconds is refused. That timing detail materially affects how an agent should sequence follow-up checks. It doesn't cover required permissions or whether the visitor record itself is retained, so not a 5.

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, both earning their place: the first defines scope and identifier, the second supplies the latency behavior. The most decision-relevant information (what the tool ends) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter mutation with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, identifier source, and propagation timing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or interpret the immediate aftermath 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% and the description's email guidance ("as list_visitors shows it") is essentially identical to the schema's own parameter description, so it adds little beyond what structured data already provides. Baseline 3 applies for a single fully documented parameter.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ("End a visitor's access") and covers both semantic cases it handles: revoking an active visitor and withdrawing an unaccepted invite. It also anchors the identifier source ("as list_visitors shows it"), so the agent can distinguish it from list_visitors and invite_visitor without opening any 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?

The two clauses ("End a visitor's access, or withdraw an invite they have not accepted") effectively define when this tool applies, and referencing list_visitors gives the agent a prerequisite workflow step. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or statement about which sibling to prefer for other visitor actions, so it falls short of a 5.

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