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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose the authorization requirement (shop owner only) and that this is a mutating revocation. It omits whether revocation is immediate or reversible, what happens to data the platform created, and failure behavior for an unknown grant_id.

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, action first, permission constraint second. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the essentials are partially covered: the action and the auth requirement are clear, but the sole parameter's provenance and the consequences of revocation are not.

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% for the single required grant_id, and the description says nothing about it — no indication of its format or that it comes from platforms_list/create. The description does not compensate for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb+resource: stopping a platform from managing the shop, i.e. revoking a management grant. It is distinguishable from platforms_create and platforms_list in the sibling set by the 'revoke/stop' framing, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Shop owner only' gives a prerequisite that narrows when it applies, implying the caller must be the shop owner acting on an existing grant. It does not say how to find an existing grant (e.g. via platforms_list) or what to do if the grant is already revoked, so usage is only implied.

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