revoke_report_schedule_historical_access

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action without revealing side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or impact on future access. As a mutating operation, more behavioral context is needed.

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 wasted words. It clearly conveys the action and object in an efficient manner.

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 a mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only provides a bare statement. It lacks explanation of what 'historical access' entails, what happens to the schedule, or what the response will be, making it incomplete for a complex API.

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% with both parameters documented as 'Schedule ID' and 'Report configuration ID'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already covers the parameters.

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' with a clear resource 'historical access for a report schedule'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_report_schedule by focusing on revoking access rather than deleting the schedule itself.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The description does not mention when revoking historical access is appropriate or what conditions must be met.

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