revoke_record_room_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says tokens are revoked and the room ends. It does not disclose whether the action is irreversible, whether it disrupts active recording, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur beyond token revocation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The colon efficiently separates the primary action from the specific mechanism, and every word contributes meaning.

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 2-required-parameter mutation with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description is insufficiently complete. It leaves the agent without guidance on prerequisites, side effects, or parameter mapping, although the presence of an output schema does reduce ambiguity about 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to either parameter. 'session_id' and 'project_path' remain unexplained, and the description does not clarify which parameter identifies the recording room or how they relate.

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 action ('End a recording room') and the mechanism ('revoke guest and producer tokens'), clearly identifying the resource and behavior. It distinguishes itself from general record/session tools by focusing on token revocation, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like record_stop_tool or create_record_room_tool. There are no conditions, prerequisites, exclusions, or mention of when it should be preferred.

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