revoke_right

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the non-obvious 404-for-group-name behavior and the distinction between a bad parameter and an ungranted right. This is the kind of behavioral detail that prevents an agent from misinterpreting failures.

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?

Each sentence in the description earns its place: purpose, the path/ID quirk, the 404 ambiguity, and the lookup recommendation. It is front-loaded with the core operation and has no filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the most critical traps and provides a clear lookup path for the needed ID. It could additionally point to list_rights or get_available_rights for valid right names, but the existing guidance is already strong.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining where the principal goes (URL path rather than request body), clarifying group ID requirements, and noting that email addresses are not resolved. It does not elaborate on the 'Right' parameter, but the schema already names it adequately.

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?

Begins with a specific verb and object: "Revoke a right from a user or group" and enumerates the exact object types covered. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like grant_rights and list_rights by stating the reverse operation and its supported targets.

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?

Provides explicit, actionable guidance: the principal must be in the URL path, groups require a numeric ID, and a group name will produce a misleading 404. It even directs the agent to get_group or list_groups to obtain the ID, and contrasts behavior with grant_rights, making the correct invocation path unambiguous.

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