Отозвать доступ пользователя

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destruction is covered. The description adds valuable context: reversibility requires add_user with an explicit role, and it clarifies that the user's Avito account, campaigns, and spending history are not deleted, plus it mentions the return value (confirmation and apiPointBalance). This goes 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the destructive consequence and restoration path, and finally the return value. No fluff.

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?

With one simple parameter and annotations covering safety, the description provides everything an agent needs: what it does, what it doesn't do, how to undo it, and what it returns. No output schema exists, so mentioning the return payload is helpful. Complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains userId as the Avito user id as returned by list_users. The description itself adds no further parameter detail, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('revokes') and resource ('user access to advertising account'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting that restoration is only via add_user and that it doesn't delete the account or campaigns, so an agent can tell it apart from deletion 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to revoke access) and mentions add_user as the restoration alternative, but does not explicitly state exclusions or contrast with set_user_role. The context is sufficient for an agent to infer the use case.

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