delete_canvas_access

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Revoke' implies a mutating/destructive operation, but the description does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, whether both user_id and group_id can be supplied or only one, or what happens if only canvas_id is given. The schema's optional user_id and group_id create ambiguity that the description does not resolve.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan and remember.

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?

Despite its simplicity, the description is incomplete for a mutating tool without annotations or output schema. It does not state the important precondition that access must already exist, nor clarify how user_id, group_id, and canvas_id combine. An agent could reasonably call this with only canvas_id since that is the only required parameter, and fail. The description does not adequately prepare the agent for that behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the structured fields already explain each parameter. The description adds that the operation targets 'a user or group', which maps to user_id and group_id, but it does not clarify the relationship between them or whether one must be provided. This is adequate but not additive beyond the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('canvas access') and clearly distinguishes itself from deletion of the canvas itself or setting/updating access. It names the target ('a user or group'), making its purpose unambiguous relative to sibling tools like delete_canvas and set_canvas_access.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not contrast with set_canvas_access or explain whether this tool is for full removal versus permission changes. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and one-line description.

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