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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/idempotentHint) by disclosing the cascade scope: revoking on a space also strips access from its folders and sheets. It also adds the confirmation flow and the post-call obligation to report which role was removed, which an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then prerequisite, then cascade, then user-facing behavior. No filler and nothing buried.

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, idempotent revocation tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers action, scope, prerequisite, side effects, and required user communication. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 already documents aclId (from access.read) and sheetId ('Or one sheet'). The description's phrasing 'a space or a sheet' reinforces the either/or intent of spaceId vs sheetId but adds no syntax or format detail 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 ('Remove one access entry… from a space or a sheet') and immediately enumerates what an access entry can be (team, member, everyone). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling access.grant / access.read / access.update tools.

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 a concrete prerequisite workflow ('Read the entries with access.read first') and a strong procedural rule ('Always asks the user first'), so the agent knows both the ordering and the confirmation requirement. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with access.update, which is why it is not a 5.

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