revoke_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the immediate behavioral change ('returns to requiring approval on every call') and the immediacy ('immediately'). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a straightforward state change, this is adequate.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no fluff or repetition. Every word adds value.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description explains what it does and the resulting state. It does not explain the parameters, but the schema names plus the tool's purpose provide reasonable context. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameters (serverId, toolName) at all. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic meaning or guidance about how to fill them, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Withdraw' and clearly identifies the resource (a tool's autonomy), distinctly differentiating it from sibling tools like promote_tool. The effect is unambiguous: the tool returns to requiring approval on every call.

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 usage context (revoking autonomy) and states the immediate consequence. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the distinction from promote_tool and approval management tools is clear from the context.

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