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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden alone; it still adds real value by spelling out the effect ("the person's PIN/card no longer opens that door, door group or location"), the persistence of the person, and the underlying DELETE call. It doesn't say whether the grant can be re-created or what the response contains, which keeps it at 4.

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 with the mutation type front-loaded as "WRITE:", followed by effect, guardrail, and endpoint. Nothing is redundant and the highest-value constraint appears first.

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 2-parameter, fully documented mutation with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what it unlocks, what it preserves, and when it is permitted. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 both properties already document themselves, including that access_id is an item id from remotelock_list_person_accesses. The description repeats that mapping but adds no format, constraint, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("removes one access grant") and immediately scopes it: the grant goes, "the person itself stays." That contrast cleanly separates it from the sibling remotelock_deactivate_access_person and from remotelock_grant_access without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ("Only do it when the user asked") and points to remotelock_list_person_accesses as the source of the access_id, plus the implicit contrast that the person record survives. It never names an explicit "when not to use / use X instead" alternative, so it stops short of the top band.

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