revoke_grant

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does mention authentication (Root signs) and a precondition (Account is not closed), plus a permission restriction (Agent cannot revoke). But it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether the grant is permanently removed), what happens on failure (e.g., if account is closed), or the meaning of dry_run. This is a partial disclosure.

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 three terse sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the signing requirement, and the permission restriction. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. The brevity is appropriate for the level of detail provided.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain return values, error conditions (e.g., what happens if root lacks authority or account is closed), the effect of dry_run, or how the grant revocation impacts other state. It also lacks guidance on distinguishing it from sibling grant tools, making it incomplete 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?

The schema covers 2 of 3 parameters (root, agent) with descriptions, but dry_run lacks any description. The tool description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and fails to compensate for the dry_run gap. No elaboration on parameter syntax, defaults, or edge cases is given.

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 action ('Revoke a Grant') and the resource. It adds meaningful constraints (Root signs, Account not closed, Agent cannot revoke) that hint at the tool's scope, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like issue_grant or revise_grant. An agent could infer it's the opposite of issue_grant but not from the text alone.

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 on when the tool can be used (root signature required, account must be open, agent lacks permission) which implies the intended caller and conditions. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like revise_grant or check_grant, nor does it list exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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