revoke_permission

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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the operation but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or impact. This mirrors the gap noted in comparable mutation tools.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise.

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?

Given the simple scope, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally acceptable. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., handling of optional serial, effect on app state) and alternative tool guidance, leaving some operational gaps.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already clearly described. The description adds no additional parameter-level nuance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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') and the resource ('runtime permission from an application package on the device'). This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling tools like grant_permission.

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 implies usage via its action, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling grant_permission is an obvious alternative, but no mention is made.

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