revoke_privileges

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it says nothing beyond the bare action. It does not disclose that this is an irreversible write with potentially disruptive effects (locking a user out of the database), nor any permission or connection prerequisites.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity comes at the cost of required substance rather than from efficient communication, so it reads more as under-specification than conciseness.

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 destructive, six-parameter privilege-management tool with no annotations and no output schema, one bare sentence leaves too much unsaid: which privileges exist, whether the operation is reversible, what the default wildcards imply, and what happens on partial failure are all unaddressed.

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 all six parameters (host, table, database, username, privileges, connectionName) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no semantics beyond that, which is the baseline case.

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 and resource ('Revoga privilégios de um usuário'), so the core action is clear. However it gives no scope detail (database/table/host dimensions) and does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-mirror sibling grant_privileges or from list_privileges/show_grants.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative grant_privileges. An agent must infer the inverse relationship itself.

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