revoke

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so exceptionally well. It discloses deferred effect (next read), non-destructive semantics, preservation of independent grants, persistence in `grant_log()`, and the meaning of `was_granted`. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before calling a revocation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence contributing distinct information: the action, the argument contract, the timing, the non-destructive behavior, and the result flag. There is no filler or repetition.

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 covers the most important operational concerns: timing, side effects, grant independence, log persistence, and outcome reporting via `was_granted`. The remaining gaps are reliance on `grant`'s schema for parameter details and lack of explicit authorization/error behavior, but these are relatively minor given how much behavioral context is provided.

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 input schema has seven parameters at 0% documentation coverage, so the description needed to compensate. It adds meaning by referencing `grant`'s argument semantics and by explaining granter/grantee independence, but it does not individually clarify `agent`, `by`, `ids`, `key`, `tag`, `scope`, or `note`. An agent would still need to look at `grant`'s schema to fully understand the parameters.

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 is explicit and specific: it says the tool 'End[s] a grant' and clarifies the exact mechanism and timing. This clearly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling `grant` and from related read-only tools like `can_read`, `grants`, and `grant_log`.

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 gives a clear invocation contract by saying 'same arguments as `grant`' and explains the effective timing. It also implies this is not a deletion/erasure tool by emphasizing that nothing is deleted and other grants survive. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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