team_revoke

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the forward re-key, new DEK at next epoch, re-wrapping to remaining members, and the returned checklist. It stops short of stating permission requirements, idempotency, or whether revocation is reversible, which would be needed for a 5.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the action and its re-key semantics come first, the external-access caveat second. Every clause conveys distinct operational information with no padding.

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?

Output schema exists, so the checklist return value needs no elaboration, and with only two fully documented parameters the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the absence of any prerequisite or permission context for a destructive-key-rotation operation.

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 principalUid (ULID) and the optional audit-trail reason are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema's own text, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Revoke a team member') and goes on to describe the concrete mechanism (append, mint DEK, re-wrap). The phrase 'team member' distinguishes it from the sibling team_device_revoke, which acts on devices rather than principals.

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?

Implies the use case (removing a person from the team) and gives an important post-condition ('you must separately remove the principal's git-host access'). However, it never contrasts with adjacent tools like team_role_set (demotion) or team_device_revoke, so the agent must infer which one applies.

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