Revoke access to one app

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive/idempotent/not-readOnly). It discloses an important side effect (a previously unscoped app becomes people-scoped, denying ungranted callers), what is preserved (other grants and invitations), a limitation (cannot clear an owner revocation), and scope of change (local state only, no network invitation; accepted shares and in-flight streams survive). This is exactly the extra context a destructive mutation needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return value, then routing, then edge cases. Dense but nearly every sentence carries operative information; only marginally overpacked.

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 destructive, side-effecting mutation, it covers routing, no-op conditions, scoping side effects, preserved state, and irreversibility. With an output schema already documenting the return, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters. It maps 'who' to a person/login ('An unknown login is a no-op') and 'app' to a private HTTP/file app, which adds some meaning, but it gives no format or identifier specifics beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb (deny/revoke), resource (one person's access to one private HTTP/file app), and scope (single person, single app), and explicitly distinguishes itself from people_remove (across apps) and people_grant (allows). An agent can select it correctly without opening any sibling schema.

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?

Directly routes between alternatives: 'Use people_revoke for one app; people_remove revokes the person across apps, and people_grant allows one app.' It also states edge-case behavior (unknown login = no-op) so the caller knows when nothing happens.

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