Revoke share

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds the critical limitation 'It applies to future reads and cannot retract what the recipient has already read' and clarifies that the memory itself survives. These details meaningfully shape an agent's expectations about side effects and are not present in the schema or annotations. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 with zero filler: the first states the operation, the second discloses the main behavioral caveat, and the third gives the usage alternative. The key action is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, this description covers the operation, the exact parameter relationship, the temporal limitation, and the sibling tool to use instead. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds relational meaning by instructing the caller to reuse the same cellId and recipientHex from the original saihm_share call, which is not explicitly stated in the schema descriptions. This small but valuable addition justifies a 4.

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: 'Withdraw a grant made with saihm_share'. It clearly differentiates itself from saihm_forget by noting 'the memory itself remains, and saihm_forget is what erases', so an agent can distinguish revoking access from erasing memory without opening schemas.

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 an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Use it to end access'. It also names the alternative saihm_forget and the condition for erasure, and it tells the agent to name 'the same cellId and the recipient's recipientHex', tying usage to the original grant.

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