player_deop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the core action and does not mention side effects, whether the player must be online, permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens if the player is not currently an operator.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, and every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the action and target are clear, but the description leaves gaps in usage selection, player identifier format, and behavioral expectations. It is minimally viable but not fully complete given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only echoes that the action is performed 'from a player,' adding minimal meaning to the player parameter, but it does not specify the expected identifier format (username vs. UUID) or any constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('Revoke'), a resource ('operator status'), and the target ('a player'), so it clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like player_op or player_pardon, though the inverse relation to player_op is implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as player_op, player_pardon, and player_kick present, an agent is left to infer selection from the tool name alone.

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