permission-revokePermission

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'revoke', implying a destructive action, but does not explain side effects (e.g., what happens if permission doesn't exist), authorization requirements, or idempotency.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified. A single sentence plus a tag is concise but fails to provide necessary context, making it more of a placeholder than a useful description.

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?

The description is extremely incomplete for a tool that revokes permissions. It lacks details on the meaning of revocation, the permission system, response behavior, and error handling. Given the complexity of permissions and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description fails to prepare the agent for correct invocation.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema has 3 parameters with only 33% coverage (only requestBody has a description). The description does not explain workspacePublicId, memberPublicId, or the permission enum values, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid requests.

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 clearly states 'Revoke a specific permission from a member', which identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like grantPermission and revokeRolePermission by specifying 'from a member'. However, it lacks details on what constitutes a 'specific permission'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as permission-grantPermission or permission-revokeRolePermission. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring the member to currently have the permission.

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