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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutation. However, the description does not disclose that this likely requires confirmation (as the title hints) or that the action is irreversible. The mention of 'confirm in Yardstick' in the title is undercut by the description's omission of any confirmation behavior or irreversible consequences. The description adds little beyond 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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is efficient, but it fails to include critical information like the confirmation flow. The title duplicates information about confirmation, but the description itself is optimally concise for what it covers.

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?

Given the tool is a destructive mutation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not mention what happens to the grant, whether bind/preview pattern is needed (siblings have bind/preview patterns for destructive actions), or how to handle the optional parameters. The title hints at a confirmation step that the description omits.

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 0% (no descriptions in the schema), and the description only mentions 'optional reason text' but does not explain the purpose of 'request_id' or 'idempotency_key'. With 4 parameters and required 'access_grant_id', the description leaves the agent to guess the semantics of the optional parameters, especially 'idempotency_key', which implies retry behavior not mentioned.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('Revoke') and direct object ('access grant'), and the title adds context about confirmation in Yardstick. It is distinct from siblings like 'yardstick_access_grants_create' and 'yardstick_access_grants_list'. The term 'explicit' avoids ambiguity with system grants, which is helpful.

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 description implies this is used to revoke an access grant, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when you need to disable a grant vs. delete it). It does not provide conditions or exclusions, leaving some inference up to the agent.

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