sentinel_remove_policy_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Revoke' clearly signals a mutating/destructive operation on access permissions, which is disclosed. However, it doesn't state side effects such as whether revocation is immediate, whether it affects active sessions, or whether existing calls are impacted. The core mutating nature is disclosed but depth is absent.

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 that states the complete purpose with zero wasted words. It immediately conveys the action and scope. Perfectly sized for a simple three-parameter revocation tool.

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?

This is a straightforward three-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool whose inverse sibling exists (add_policy_rule). The description is adequate for selecting the tool correctly. It could benefit from noting that a corresponding add operation exists as a sibling, but the simplicity of the operation means minimal additional context is required.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (agentId, toolName, serverName). The description adds value by confirming that toolName is specifically about revoking access to that tool, but it doesn't add syntax, format, or behavioral details beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 "Revoke an agent's access to a specific tool" clearly states the verb (revoke), resource (agent's access to a tool), and scope (specific tool). It distinguishes from the sibling sentinel_add_policy_rule which does the opposite. It doesn't mention 'policy rule' naming but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage context (removing an agent-tool permission) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. The sibling sentinel_add_policy_rule suggests an inverse relationship that a skilled agent could infer, but no alternatives are named or exclusions stated. Basic clarity without explicit context.

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