revoke_shared_context

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

The annotations include 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating the tool should be read-only, but the description states it 'Removes access' which is a write operation. This is a clear contradiction, so transparency is severely compromised.

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 concise, with a clear summary, a brief requirement, and a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value without 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter), the description covers the operation, argument, and return type. The mention of output schema (returning JSON string) is helpful. However, the contradiction with annotations reduces completeness slightly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the 'token' parameter as 'The sharing token to revoke', which adds basic context but lacks details like format or validation rules. This is adequate for a single parameter.

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 'Revoke a shared context invitation. Removes access for the recipient.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'accept_shared_context' (accepts) and 'share_space' (shares).

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 mentions 'Requires Novyx Cloud' as a prerequisite, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., accept_shared_context for approval). Usage is implied but not directly compared.

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