ops_access_revoke

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context about persisting 'in local state' but lacks critical safety disclosures for a mutation tool: whether revocation is reversible, immediate side effects, permission requirements, or what the operation returns.

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?

Single sentence of 13 words with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the action verb and efficiently conveys the dual-mode operation (single vs bulk) and persistence behavior.

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 3-parameter mutation operation with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core revocation logic but misses the 'reason' parameter entirely and lacks safety warnings or return value documentation appropriate for destructive operations.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It implicitly clarifies the semantics of grant_id vs revoke_all_active through the 'one... or all' phrasing, but completely omits the 'reason' parameter, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Revoke') with clear resource ('access grant'/'grants') and scope ('one' vs 'all'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ops_access_approve and ops_access_request through the revocation action.

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 implies the mutual exclusivity pattern between grant_id (one) and revoke_all_active (all), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ops_access_approve, or prerequisites for revocation.

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