paybot_pool_revoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it says nothing about permissions required, whether the removal is reversible, or what happens to the bot's existing pool allocation. For a mutation tool with zero structured safety hints, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a two-parameter mutation. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of side effects, permission requirements, or post-removal state, an agent lacks enough to invoke this confidently. A mutation tool needs at least that much context.

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%, with both poolId and botId documented inline, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, constraint, or relationship detail beyond restating the two parameters in prose.

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?

Specific verb ("Remove") plus resource ("a bot from a pool"), so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from pool siblings like paybot_pool_allocate or paybot_pool_status, which is the only thing keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 statement of when to use this versus paybot_pool_allocate, paybot_pool_status, or paybot_pool_create, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the entire decision context from the name.

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