Revoke a user's access

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical context: exactly what is destroyed, what is preserved, and the recovery path via add_user. It also discloses the return value (API confirmation plus apiPointBalance), going beyond annotation-only information.

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 two well-structured sentences that front-load purpose and key risk, followed by clarifying scope and return value. Every clause provides value without redundancy.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, destructive implications, unaffected data, recovery path, and return value. For a tool with a single parameter, this is contextually complete and sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has 100% coverage for userId, including its source as list_users. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's explanation, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'revokes' and identifies the resource 'a user's access to the ad account.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like add_user and set_user_role, and clarifies non-destructive scope (does not delete the person's Avito account, campaigns, or spend history).

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 explicitly warns that the action is destructive and states the only recovery path is add_user with an explicit role, guiding when to use this tool. It also clarifies the boundaries of what is not affected, reducing misuse. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with set_user_role for changing roles, but the context is sufficient.

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