scf_remove_engagement_auditor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is a destructive write, requires an admin role, and returns no content on success. This covers the key behavioral and safety traits an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action first, then the destructive/admin warning, then the success return behavior. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 three-UUID-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, that it is destructive, who may perform it, and what a successful call returns. The schema handles parameter sourcing, so nothing critical is missing.

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 baseline is 3. Each parameter is already documented with guidance on where to obtain the relevant UUID. The description text itself adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema fully compensates.

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 and resource: 'Revoke an auditor's access to one engagement.' It also clarifies the scope ('one engagement') and adds a safety qualifier ('destructive write — admin role'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling scf_add_engagement_auditor.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: an admin revoking an auditor's access from a single engagement. It does not explicitly name alternatives like scf_add_engagement_auditor, but the verb and engagement-specific scope make the usage situation clear.

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