superset_dashboard_revoke_role_access

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of potential cross-dashboard breakage, the warning check, and the dry-run behavior without confirm_revoke=True. This is strong transparency, though it does not cover error handling or auth requirements.

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?

The description is well-structured and efficient: a clear action statement, a prominently marked IMPORTANT warning, a brief dry-run explanation, and a concise Args list. Every sentence contributes information with no filler.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (destructive mutation with cross-dashboard side effects and a dry-run mode), the description covers the critical context: the side-effect mechanism, the confirmation parameter, and parameter provenance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and source ('from dashboard_list', 'from role_list') and the effect of confirm_revoke (True=apply, False=dry-run). This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Revoke a role's access to a dashboard') and the mechanism ('removing datasource_access for the dashboard's datasets'), making it distinct from its sibling grant_role_access and other permission tools. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear usage context, explaining the destructive side effect on other dashboards sharing the same dataset and instructing that the tool checks/warns about this. It also clarifies the dry-run vs. apply workflow using confirm_revoke. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions beyond the shared-dataset warning.

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