modx_revoke_resourcegroup_access

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Remove', signaling destruction, but does not state whether the revoke is immediate or permanent, what permission level is required, whether the ACL row is deleted or merely zeroed, or whether revoking a nonexistent entry errors. The critical disambiguation that the id is the ACL entry id (not the group or resource id) is the only real transparency gain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing wastes the agent's attention. Its terseness borders on underspecification, but that is penalized under other dimensions rather than here.

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?

This is an unannotated, irreversible access-control mutation with no output schema and no documented return behavior. For a security-sensitive revoke, the description should at minimum state required permissions, permanence, and where to obtain the id. It provides almost none of that.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. Calling it an 'ACL entry by id' does clarify which of several plausible ids is expected, which is meaningful. It still omits the id's source (list_resourcegroup_access) and any format or range expectations.

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: 'Remove a resource-group access ACL entry by id.' The phrase 'ACL entry' usefully distinguishes this from modx_remove_resource_from_group, which detaches a resource rather than an ACL entry. It does not, however, explicitly name the grant/update siblings it complements.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the inverse of modx_grant_resourcegroup_access and that the id must be sourced from modx_list_resourcegroup_access. Nothing states whether modx_update_resourcegroup_access could achieve the same effect.

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