remove_job_permission

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly declares 'Write operation' and 'admin only', which is exactly the mutation/auth context an agent needs. It also explains that the permission ID alone identifies the row while user_id is contextual. It stops short of stating reversibility or failure behavior.

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?

Purpose and the admin/write constraint are front-loaded, followed by the ID-lookup workflow. Sentences are dense but each earns its place; only the closing clause about user_id being 'accepted for context' is slightly redundant with the parameter clarification.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema present, the description covers mutation semantics, authorization requirement, and parameter sourcing. The main gap is the absence of any disambiguation from remove_future_job_permission, which matters given how similar the sibling names are.

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 100% and both params are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by stating how to source each ID and clarifying that user_id is not strictly needed for identification ('the permission ID alone identifies the row'), which meaningfully affects how the agent supplies arguments.

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 and resource: 'Revoke a user's job-level permission.' That is clear and actionable. However, it does not differentiate from the close sibling remove_future_job_permission, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the two permission-removal tools applies.

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 gives a concrete retrieval workflow (list_users to find user_id, list_job_permissions to find the permission ID) and flags 'admin only'. But it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to add_job_permission, list_job_permissions, or remove_future_job_permission, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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