remove_future_job_permission

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the two highest-value traits: this is a write operation and it is admin-only. It stops short of stating whether the revocation is reversible or the response format.

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-loads purpose and the critical write/admin constraint in the first two clauses, then gives the ID-resolution steps efficiently. Every sentence is useful, though the ID lookup guidance is slightly verbose for two fully documented parameters.

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?

Two required params are fully documented and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, safety, and parameter sourcing, leaving only reversibility unstated.

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 already 100%, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: it explains that user_id is resolved via list_users matched by name, that the permission ID comes from list_future_job_permissions, and notably that the permission ID alone identifies the rule while user_id is only contextual.

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 (Revoke) plus a precise resource (future job permission rule), and the 'future' qualifier cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling remove_job_permission. An agent can identify the target operation without opening any 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 clear invocation context: it is a write operation, requires admin, and provides a workflow for obtaining both IDs. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over sibling removal tools, but the preconditions are concrete and actionable.

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