revoke_scope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a real behavioral constraint (Kiln Business plan required for the organisation) which is valuable, but it says nothing about what revoking actually does — immediate vs deferred effect, side effects on team members, error behavior, or reversibility.

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 purpose and the either-or rule are front-loaded and efficient, but the middle section drifts into marketing copy about shared workspaces and an upgrade URL, which is partly useful as a prerequisite but padded with promotional text.

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 licence-gated mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description covers the plan gate and parameter selection but omits effect/reversibility and the meaning of the three required parameters, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the tenant_id/team_id either-or semantics, which the bare schema does not, but leaves org_id, scope_key, and capability completely undefined — three of the five parameters remain opaque.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Revoke a scope grant'), which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling grant_scope. It does not explicitly name the inverse tool, but the action and target are 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?

It does say which parameter to supply for a personal vs team-targeted grant, which is useful conditional guidance, but there is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. grant_scope, list_scopes) or any prerequisites/ordering beyond the plan note.

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