rws_usage_remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description adds genuine value by stating the operation is scoped so source artifacts and other uses survive. However it says nothing about permission requirements, error/conflict behavior when expectedRevision is stale, or whether revocation is reversible.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though efficiency here edges toward under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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 non-read-only mutation with four opaque required parameters and no output schema, the description does not say what a success response looks like, what happens on revision mismatch, or what a 'usage' refers to in this domain. The one clarifying clause does not cover the operational surface an agent needs.

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 0% with four required parameters (id, projectId, requestId, expectedRevision), and the description explains none of them. In particular the optimistic-concurrency role of expectedRevision and the idempotency role of requestId are never surfaced, leaving the agent to guess from bare names.

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?

Specific verb ('Revoke') plus resource ('material usage') with a scope qualifier ('without deleting source artifacts or other uses'). An agent can distinguish it from rws_usage_save by the revoke/save contrast, though the description never names the counterpart 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?

No statement of when to use this versus rws_usage_save or the propose/apply/dismiss families, and no prerequisites or preconditions. The 'without deleting...' clause clarifies blast radius rather than routing, so usage context is left entirely to inference.

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