gateway_admin_revoke_resource

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

Annotations only include a title, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions the destructive action and the dry_run default, which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, or what happens on success or failure. For a mutation tool with no annotation hints, this is a moderate disclosure gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and permission, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for the information it provides.

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?

Given the tool has six parameters with zero schema descriptions and an output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain how to specify a grant (by ID or subject/pattern), the meaning of each parameter, or the nature of the output. The dry_run note is helpful but far from sufficient 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 provides no explanation of any parameters beyond dry_run's default. Six parameters (system, grant_id, subject_key, subject_type, resource_pattern) are entirely unexplained, making it impossible to correctly identify which parameters are required to revoke a specific grant. The description does not compensate at all.

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 verb 'Revoke' and the resource type 'DB-backed MCP resource grants', distinguishing it from sibling tools like revoke_access_package and revoke_scope. The specificity of 'DB-backed' further clarifies the domain.

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 resource grants and mentions the permission requirement 'Requires access:admin', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other revoke variants. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or alternative routing, leaving some inference to the agent.

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