admin_revoke

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is reversible (history preserved, lockout until re-granted/rotated) and returns a count. It also notes the behavior when the participant has no active tokens. This is good transparency, though rate limits or permission details beyond 'admin' are not mentioned.

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 with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second explains effects and return value. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, behavioral effects (history preservation, lockout), and return value. It also addresses the edge case of 0 count. It lacks explicit mention of whether multiple tokens are handled, but 'token(s)' implies plural. Overall, it is mostly complete.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the parameter as 'by participant name' linking to 'teammate' in the project. However, it does not specify the format (e.g., username vs email) or constraints beyond min/max length. This is adequate but minimal added meaning.

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 tool revokes active tokens of a teammate by participant name within the project. It uses a specific verb 'revoke' and resource 'token(s)', and distinguishes from siblings like 'admin_provision' and 'admin_rotate' by being explicitly a revocation action.

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 specifies that the tool is 'Project-admin only' and scoped to the current project. It explains the effect (lockout until re-granted or rotated) and the return value, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'admin_rotate' or 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.