revoke_privilege

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

Annotations already declare the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and idempotent (idempotentHint: true). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name – it does not mention consequences of revocation, failure modes, or whether the action is reversible. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the description contributes minimal additional behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse. However, it is slightly too terse – it could include a bit more context without becoming bloated, but the conciseness itself is appropriate.

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?

The description is severely incomplete for a destructive tool with two required parameters. It fails to explain what 'grantee' means, what privileges can be revoked, any side effects, or what happens if the privilege does not exist. Given the destructive nature, essential context is missing, making it difficult for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions that the privilege format is the same as grant_privilege, which gives a hint for the 'privilege' parameter but leaves 'grantee' undefined. No details on allowed values, syntax, or examples are provided, so parameter semantics are largely unexplained.

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 tool's purpose: '回收权限' (revoke privilege). It names a specific action and resource, and the reference to grant_privilege for format helps distinguish it as the inverse operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it removes a previously granted privilege from a grantee, leaving some ambiguity for less familiar users.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint is that the privilege format matches grant_privilege, which is a format reference, not usage guidance. It does not explain when a privilege should be revoked or what conditions apply.

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