revoke_access_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the admin permission requirement, but does not describe the effects of revocation (e.g., whether the underlying grant is deleted), reversibility, or any other side effects. For a mutating action, this is insufficient.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose and admin scope without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to fully contextualize the tool. It lacks information about the effects of revocation, error cases, or how it relates to the other access management tools, leaving the agent uncertain about the exact workflow and consequences.

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?

The input schema describes the only parameter 'id' as 'ID of the resource', which is vague and could refer to either the access request or the target resource. The tool description does not clarify this, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; however, the description adds no additional semantic value beyond 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 uses a specific verb 'revoke' and identifies the resource as 'a previously granted access request', which clearly conveys an admin action. It provides some distinction from related tools like delete_access_request by noting the request was 'previously granted', but does not explicitly name alternatives, so sibling differentiation is limited.

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 phrase 'Admin:' indicates the tool is restricted to administrators, and 'previously granted' implies it should be used for revoking already-approved access. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over delete_access_request or delete_access_grant, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the admin role.

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