team_device_revoke

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the side effect of appending a deviceRevoked event, the convergent-fold propagation behavior across peers, and the authorization requirement. It goes well beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 front-loaded with the core action and is composed of four dense, purposeful sentences. Every sentence contributes operational meaning without repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an available output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: purpose, side effects, propagation semantics, and authorization. Minor details such as idempotency or re-enrollment behavior are not required to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents deviceId and reason. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for either parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: revoke an enrolled device by ULID. It is clear enough to distinguish from list-oriented siblings like team_device_list, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with team_revoke or similar team-level revocation tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context by specifying the authorization constraint: the revoker must be the device's own principal, or a team admin/owner. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as using team_device_list to find the deviceId.

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