Revoke local context access

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the downstream effects (publication suppression, job fencing) and confirming idempotency with 'repeat safely', but it omits what ownership/permission prerequisites mean in practice and what exactly is destroyed.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core verb and resource before the side effects and the idempotency note. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough that some context must be inferred.

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, idempotent mutation tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it conveys the action and its consequences. The main residual gap is the absence of guidance on authorization prerequisites beyond what the schema states.

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%, so the schema already documents grant_id, context_id, and owner_token (including the note that the owner access grant cannot be revoked). The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 (Revoke) and resource (a local-context grant) and further details the effects: suppressing publication and fencing the active job. It clearly distinguishes the action from sibling write operations like local_context_grant or local_context_create, though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is implied by the revoke semantics, and 'repeat safely' signals that repeated calls are tolerated, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or distinction from the nearby local_context_release sibling. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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