revoke_approvals

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

Annotations only say it is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds the important behavioral facts that this is a bulk, unfiltered action ('every') and that the effect is re-prompting on the next reveal. It does not mention confirmation or what is returned, but the core side effect is disclosed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no waste: verb, scope, and consequence in a single clause.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and simple annotations, the description covers what it does and its effect. Minor gap: it does not say whether the action is confirmable/undoable or how the agent observes success.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete by definition and the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies a no-argument bulk operation.

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?

States a specific verb (cancel/revoke) and a specific resource (time-boxed 'Allow for …' approvals), including the scope 'every'. It is distinguishable from credential CRUD siblings, though it never names a related sibling like run_with_credential to anchor it in the workflow.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the purpose clause 'so the next reveal asks again' conveys why an agent would call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative.

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