Remove contest permission (admin)

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only; the description adds useful context by specifying that all of the user's editor/viewer/admin access is removed and that contest administration rights are required. This adds value beyond the structured annotation fields without contradicting them.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action, scope, effect, and access prerequisite are all front-loaded in a compact, readable form.

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 two-parameter admin action with complete schema coverage, a destructive annotation, an output schema, and permission prerequisite in the description, nothing essential is missing. The agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with both user_id and contest_id already clearly documented as ObjectIds. The description adds only the high-level notion of 'role on a contest,' which does not materially improve on the schema's parameter explanations.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Revoke' and names the resource, a user's role on a contest, then enumerates exactly what is removed: editor/viewer/admin access. This clearly differentiates it from permission-getting and permission-setting siblings.

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 states a clear precondition, 'Requires contest administration rights,' which helps the agent know when the tool is permitted. It does not explicitly name alternatives like repovive_set_contest_permission or repovive_get_contest_permissions, so it falls short of fully explicit when-to-use guidance.

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