npm_team_revoke

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the valuable context that the team itself is not deleted—only its access to the package is revoked. This clarifies the scope of destructive action beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence earns its place. It is concise, readable, and free of unnecessary detail.

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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, the team format, and an explicit caveat about team deletion. The sibling list provides additional context, and the description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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%: both 'team' and 'package' have descriptions that include the '@scope:team' format and the naming rationale for 'package'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the action: 'Revoke a team's access to a package.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from npm_team_delete by noting it does not delete the team itself. This differentiates it from sibling tools like npm_team_grant and npm_team_delete.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool (to revoke a team's package access) and when not to (if the goal is to delete the team, use npm_team_delete). This provides clear usage guidance and a named alternative, exceeding the minimum.

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