panelica_databases_post_v1_databases_id_revoke

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so 'Mutating: changes server state' mostly restates that signal. The description does add the required scope 'databases:write', which is useful auth context, but it does not disclose what state is changed, whether the action is reversible, or what consequences revoking has.

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 metadata lines are compact and scannable, but the opening 'Create revoke' is a redundant placeholder that duplicates the title instead of adding clarity. The structure would be stronger if the description led with a plain-language explanation of the operation.

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 mutating POST with an open body object and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: what the revoke affects, what body fields are valid, and what a successful response looks like. The endpoint, scopes, and mutating flag are present, but an agent still lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 100%, so both id and body already have descriptions and the description need not repeat them. The body note that the schema is not statically declared is useful, but the tool description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameters.

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 opens with 'Create revoke', which is effectively the title and endpoint verb restated; it does not plainly say what operation is performed (e.g., revoking database access or privileges). The HTTP line identifies the database endpoint, but an agent cannot tell what 'revoke' actually does or how it differs from the sibling grant/delete database tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as databases_post_v1_databases_id_grant or databases_delete_v1_databases_id. The included scopes and mutating flag are operational metadata, not usage or selection guidance.

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