Remove actor ownership

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation falls back to the default permission level, and the tool warns when that default still grants access. It also discloses the confirmation requirement, which is a behavioral gate. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the exact response shape, but no output schema exists and the core behavior is well covered.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core behavior, the alternative tool for a different intent, and the required confirmation flags. The most important information is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is removed, what happens next, when to use the sibling, and what confirmations are needed. It doesn't describe the response format, but the annotations and schema already cover the safety profile and parameters. A small gap is not explaining what 'the answer warns' means in terms of response structure, but this is minor.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the semantic effect of confirmRemoval and confirmBulkOperation (they are gates that must be true), and by clarifying the relationship between removing permission and falling back to defaults. It doesn't repeat parameter names unnecessarily, but it does add value beyond the schema.

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 ('Remove'), a specific resource ('explicit permission a player has on an actor'), and the consequence ('the default level of the actor applies again'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling assign-actor-ownership by explaining when to use that tool instead. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (remove explicit permission) and when not to (to hide an actor completely, use assign-actor-ownership with NONE). It also states the required confirmation flags (confirmRemoval, and confirmBulkOperation for bulk operations), which is essential usage guidance.

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