revoke

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the call is consent-carrying, explains the subject's fallback state, and clarifies that revoking a never-assigned subject is a no-op. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 concise at three sentences plus a tier label, with the main action front-loaded. Almost no wasted words, though a more structured format with an explicit parameter definition would be ideal.

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 key behavioral aspects (consent, no-op, tier), but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or preconditions (e.g., must be an existing user). With no output schema or annotations, these gaps reduce completeness.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description must define the parameter. It introduces 'subject' but does not explicitly describe what it represents (e.g., a user ID or identifier). The context implies it's the entity to revoke, but the definition is insufficient.

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's action: 'Remove a subject's circle assignment.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'grant' (add assignment) and 'access_requests' (list).

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 provides context about consent (calling this IS the approval) and behavior for non-assigned subjects (no-op that records intent). It also specifies 'Tier: owner' indicating who should use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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