gateway_admin_revoke_scope

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

Annotations provide only a title and no readOnly/destructive hints, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Revoke' which implies a destructive action, but does not explain side effects, reversibility, or consequences of a non-dry-run call. The dry_run default is mentioned, but its significance and what happens when set to false are not clarified.

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 very short and front-loads the core action, but it is under-specified. It does not waste words, yet it omits critical parameter context and usage nuance. It is concise but not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With five parameters (none required), no schema descriptions, and minimal annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to identify a grant (which combination of parameters), what the output schema contains, or the implications of dry_run. A mutation tool with this complexity requires much more context 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 only mentions dry_run's default. It does not explain grant_id, scope_name, subject_key, or subject_type, leaving an agent without any semantic guidance for four of five parameters. The description adds almost no value beyond what the schema's field names (which are also sparse) imply.

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 verb and resource: 'Revoke DB-backed Gateway scope grants.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gateway_admin_revoke_resource and gateway_admin_revoke_access_package, which target different entities. The scope is precise and the action is 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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like grant_scope or revoke_resource. It only mentions a prerequisite (access:admin) but offers no context about selection criteria, when to avoid, or relationship to other revoke tools. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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