gateway_admin_revoke_access_package

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

With no annotations beyond the title, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the required permission and the scoping of grants, which is useful. However, it does not mention the dry_run parameter or any side effects such as reversibility, leaving significant behavioral context undocumented.

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 that states the action and permission with no wasted words. It is concise and to the point, though it lacks a structured breakdown of parameters or effects.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and permission, but omits the dry_run parameter's function and any note about reversibility or side effects. Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but the missing parameter explanation leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 does not mention either parameter (bundle_id or dry_run). The agent is left to infer from parameter names alone. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, especially the dry_run default behavior, which is critical for safe usage.

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 states the action (revoke) and the resource (a package), and specifies the scope (only grants created by it). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like revoke_scope or revoke_resource, which target different resource types.

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 implies usage for revoking access packages, and it mentions the required permission (access:admin). However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this over sibling revoke tools (e.g., revoke_scope, revoke_resource), nor does it state when not to use it.

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