Identity Revoke JIT

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of 'Revoke' aligns. It adds value by specifying authorization requirements (admin role, scope) and the need for an audit reason, which are not covered by annotations.

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, efficient and front-loaded with the action and requirements. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 100% schema coverage and existence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, and required parameters, enabling an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minimal extra value beyond what the schema provides, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 the verb 'Revoke' and the resource 'active JIT grant', and specifies immediate action. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like identity_grant_jit (grant) and identity_revoke (generic revoke) by focusing on JIT grants.

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 explicitly mentions required admin role, identity:write scope, and audit reason, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like the generic identity_revoke, but the sibling list helps differentiate.

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