glm_5_revoke_approval

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'without applying mutation' but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or state changes. Minimal behavioral disclosure for a mutation-adjacent tool.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Efficient but borderline too concise given missing information. Slightly penalized for completeness trade-off.

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 output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters, description is inadequate. Does not explain approval workflow, how to obtain approvalId, or consequences of revocation. Lacks sufficient context for reliable invocation.

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 0% and description adds no meaning to parameters. Does not explain proposalId, approvalId, or reason. Agent gets no help understanding what values to provide or their roles.

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?

Description states specific verb 'revoke' and resource 'current approval token', and adds 'without applying mutation' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve_and_apply or propose_changes. Very clear purpose.

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?

Implied usage context (revoke token without mutation) but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like reissue_approval or apply_approved_patch. Missing when-not scenarios.

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