revoke_project_grant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the destructive action (revoke) and required ownership, but lacks details on reversibility, confirmation, or side effects on dependent resources. Adequate but could be more informative.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists parameters and a requirement. No extraneous information, efficient and clear.

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?

With no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and a key user requirement. It lacks output description (no output schema), but for a revocation tool, the current information is mostly sufficient. Minor gap in error or side-effect details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds the ownership requirement but does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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') and the resource ('per-project capability grant by id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_project_grant' and implies a specific operation.

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 a clear precondition ('Requires you to be an owner of the project's org'), which guides proper usage. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for this straightforward revocation.

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