tb_revoke

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

Annotations already communicate mutability, idempotency, and destructiveness, so the description adds meaningful context beyond those hints: it appends rather than replaces board ownership, and it requires exact task-authority negotiation. It does not detail all destructive consequences, but the annotations cover the core safety signal.

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 two tightly worded sentences with no filler. The most important behavioral constraint ('without changing board ownership') is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated in the second sentence.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with nested capability schema and no output schema, so the description must carry substantial explanatory weight. It explains the operation's boundary and negotiation requirement but omits per-parameter meaning, expected success/error behavior, and visible effects for the caller.

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%, and the description does not explain what each parameter means. It only hints at the capability negotiation concept, which maps loosely to 'capability', but actor, grantId, idempotencyKey, expectedBoardRevision, and reason are left entirely to the agent's interpretation of the schema.

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 is specific: 'Append an authority revocation' clearly names the verb and resource, and the qualifier 'without changing board ownership' disambiguates its scope from related tools like tb_grant or tb_handoff. This is a crisp, differentiating purpose statement.

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 gives a clear purpose and states an important precondition ('Requires exact task-authority@1.0.0 negotiation'), which helps an agent understand when the call is valid. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools for related operations, so usage guidance is primarily implied rather than explicit.

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