ftrack_revoke_user_security_role_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or reversibility. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 that is precise and free of filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool is simple with three well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description captures the essential scope and action. While it could mention success behavior or permissions, the minimalism is acceptable for this straightforward revoke operation.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 'Revoke' and identifies the exact resource 'user security role access' with a clear scope 'from a specific project'. This distinguishes it from siblings like ftrack_remove_user_security_role (global) and ftrack_revoke_api_key_project.

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 phrase 'from a specific project' implies this is for project-scoped revocation, contrasting with general revocation tools. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are named, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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