Revoke Micro private access grant

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

Annotations already convey destructiveness (destructiveHint=true), non-read-only behavior, and idempotency. The description adds the useful clarification that token creation is not handled by this tool and must happen via a secure CLI handoff, which is beyond the annotations. It does not elaborate on consequences of revocation or the need for confirmation, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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 sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence about CLI handoff earns its place by clarifying an important boundary without adding noise.

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 simple revocation tool, the description combined with the input schema and annotations covers the essential behaviors: what is revoked, the single-grant scope, and the confirmation requirement. It could be more complete by pointing to micro_private_grants for discovering the grantId, but that is not strictly necessary for correct 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 description coverage is 67%, and the schema already documents grantId, confirm, and path. The description adds no new parameter-level information; 'one exact' loosely maps to grantId but does not explain format or usage. With moderate schema coverage and no clear gaps, the description neither boosts nor harms parameter clarity.

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 verb 'Revoke' and the resource 'one exact private-site bearer grant', which precisely identifies what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling tools like micro_private_grants (listing grants) and other revoke tools by naming the specific resource type. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast, so it falls just short of top-tier differentiation.

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 implies usage: use this tool to revoke a private-site bearer grant, and 'one exact' signals it is for a single specific grant rather than bulk operations. The line 'Token creation remains a secure CLI handoff' provides a partial exclusion by indicating that token creation is not done here. Still, it does not mention alternatives such as listing grants first via micro_private_grants or how to obtain a grantId.

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