Revoke a browser guest link

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, non-readonly), the description adds an authorization requirement ('Owner-only') and a scope note ('Uses local state only; Funnel availability is reported separately'), which is genuine added context. However, it never says what is actually invalidated by the revoke, and the sentence 'Tokens are shown only when explicitly requested' is confusing for a destructive revoke operation and reads as irrelevant filler.

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?

'Owner-only' is front-loaded effectively, but the description runs four disjoint clauses, and the trailing material about token display and OIDC/tailnet accounts is off-topic for a revoke action and dilutes the message.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the authorization prerequisite is covered. Still missing are the identity/meaning of the 'id' parameter and the concrete effect of revocation, leaving a gap for a destructive 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'id' parameter carries no description. The only hint is 'for one app', which is ambiguous about whether 'id' refers to an app or a guest grant, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap and may even mislead.

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+resource ('guest_revoke browser guest grants') and constrains scope ('for one app'), which lets an agent separate it from guest_create, guest_list, and guest_show. It does not, however, distinguish it from the adjacent revoke siblings invite_revoke/people_revoke, so a reader must infer the target type from the name.

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?

It supplies a real prerequisite ('Owner-only'), which is useful gating information, but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never names the alternative revoke tools (invite_revoke, people_revoke). Usage is only implied by naming the resource.

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