revoke_project_grant

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a destructive action (revoke) and an ownership requirement, but lacks details on reversibility, idempotency, or failure modes. Core behavior is clear but not richly described.

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 concise, with purpose front-loaded and no superfluous content. The parameter list and condition are efficiently integrated, though slightly redundant with schema.

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 simple revocation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides essential information: action, parameters, and a key requirement. It is adequate, though could mention sync/async or side effects.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates parameter names but adds no semantic information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., types, examples).

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 clearly specifies the action ('Revoke a per-project capability grant by id'), identifies the resource (a grant associated with a project), and distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project_grant'.

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 mentions a prerequisite (owner of the project's org) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude scenarios. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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