rbac_revoke_role

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It details exact matching including undefined resourceType. However, it omits side effects, error handling, permissions, or whether a missing match results in error or silent success.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds matching details. No superfluous 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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description lacks critical details: return value, error behavior, authorization, and consequences. It is incomplete for safe 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%, requiring the description to compensate. It only adds that matching is exact and includes undefined resourceType. Individual parameter meanings (agentId, role) are not explained beyond schema basics, leaving gaps.

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 removes a specific role assignment using a verb 'Remove' and specifies the resource ('role assignment'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rbac_assign_role by focusing on revocation.

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 explains matching criteria (agentId, role, resourceType) but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or contrast with siblings are provided.

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