Revoke an access code

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: the code stops opening the page immediately, existing installs survive, shared password and other codes are unaffected, and the action cannot be undone. This tells an agent exactly what the blast radius is.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences: what it does, what state changes, reversibility, and the required confirmation and role. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 single-record mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect timing, side-effect boundaries, irreversibility, confirmation protocol, and authorization. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining that id comes from list_access_codes and that confirm must be true with a stated reason (ask the person first). The const:true constraint is in the schema, but the intent behind it is only in the description.

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 and resource ('Turn off one access code') plus the scope ('one') and where the id comes from ('from list_access_codes'). This clearly separates it from list_access_codes and create_access_code without needing to open a 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?

Gives the operating context and prerequisites: ask the person first, pass confirm: true, and requires Owner or Admin role. It doesn't name an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use case, but the single-target scope is already delimited.

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