delete_list_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a mutating removal operation, but it omits whether the revocation is reversible, whether special permissions are required, and whether user_id and group_id interact (e.g., mutually exclusive or one required). These are material details for a tool that deletes access.

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 short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and packs the resource and target into a compact, understandable phrase.

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 low-complexity tool, the core action is clear, but important invocation context is missing: the description never says that a user or group identifier is needed to actually revoke access, and it offers no behavioral or error context. With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves an agent with an adequate but not fully complete picture.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds little beyond paraphrasing the schema, and it does not clarify the real-world constraint that at least one of user_id or group_id should be provided when only list_id is marked required.

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'), names the resource ('access to a Slack List'), and clarifies the target ('a user or group'). This makes the operation unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like set_list_access, which grants or changes 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?

The correct usage is implied by the word 'Revoke' — use this tool when access should be removed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or that set_list_access is the complementary operation. An agent has to infer the decision context.

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