Api risk acceptances revoke create

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, yet the description claims the endpoint allows the resource to be "viewed", directly implying read-only behavior. It says nothing about what a revoke does, whether it is reversible, whether prior acceptance state is lost, or what permissions are required — the exact behavioral facts an agent needs before firing a revoke.

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?

One short sentence, but it is pure boilerplate that spends its words on an inaccurate generalization rather than the action, object, and effect. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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-idempotent, non-read-only action endpoint with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should at minimum name the action (revoke), the target (a risk acceptance), and the resulting state change. It supplies none of these, and its 'viewed or edited' framing is actively misleading.

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% and the description adds nothing about the single required parameter. An agent must infer that 'id' is the risk acceptance identifier to revoke, and receives no hint about accepted ID format or what happens when an invalid/non-pending acceptance ID is supplied.

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 a generic DRF boilerplate line ("allows risk acceptance to be viewed or edited") that never mentions the operation the tool name advertises: revoke. It restates a resource but gives no specific verb, so an agent cannot tell what calling this actually does, and it is indistinguishable from the boilerplate attached to hundreds of sibling endpoints.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all, and nothing distinguishes this from the closely related siblings ciso_assistant_api_risk_acceptances_accept_create, _reject_create, _submit_create, _draft_create, or _destroy. Worse, the phrase "viewed or edited" suggests a read/update operation, which points an agent away from the actual revoke action.

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