get_graph_embed_revoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Revoke' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It also doesn't describe what 'revoke' means operationally (e.g., disabling access vs. deletion). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable despite its brevity. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'revoke' entails, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. Given the complexity implied by 'revoke' (likely a permission/access change), more context about behavior and results is needed.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description mentions 'a specified embed' which implies some identification mechanism, but since parameters are explicitly documented as empty in the schema, the description doesn't need to compensate. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Revoke a specified embed' clearly states the action (revoke) and target (embed), but lacks specificity about what 'embed' refers to in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_graph_embed' or 'create_graph_embeds', leaving ambiguity about the exact resource being manipulated.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing embed to revoke), appropriate contexts, or what happens after revocation. With sibling tools like 'get_graph_embed' and 'create_graph_embeds', the agent receives no help in choosing between them.

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