revoke_trading_access

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 declares the operation mutates Officer control-plane config, that it is protected and disabled by default, and it discloses a specific refusal path (loosening_refused) with the underlying reason (venue fees skipped). It does not state required permission level or how to re-grant after revocation, which keeps it below 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and target, then the refusal edge case, then the safety posture. Dense but every clause adds information; 'Officer' jargon is repeated rather than trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and all three parameters are schema-documented. For an unannotated mutation tool the description supplies the mutation/protection/refusal context an agent needs; only auth requirements and post-revocation state are missing.

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 two named parameters plus their mutual exclusivity are already documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by qualifying when accountGroup is even applicable ('where the server offers account groups'), which the schema does not express.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Revoke the access of an Officer account to a trading connection'. It also covers the alternate target (account group) and implicitly separates from grant_trading_access by verb, but never names the inverse sibling explicitly, so cross-tool disambiguation relies on the reader noticing the verb pair.

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 clarifies the account-vs-accountGroup choice is conditional on the server offering account groups, which is real usage guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to grant_trading_access or list_trading_destinations for the preconditions an agent would need before revoking.

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