confluence_restriction_revoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return format (YAML with 'status: ok') and parameter constraints. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions required, or behavior when no restriction exists for the given user/group. This leaves gaps for an agent.

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 three sentences: first states purpose, second gives parameter constraints, third provides return format and CLI reference. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter constraints, and return format. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites (e.g., page existence), but for a simple revocation tool, it is largely sufficient. Minor gap in not addressing edge cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the mutual exclusivity of account_id/group and clarifying the operation values. It also introduces the return format, which is not in the schema. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 the action ('revoke'), resource ('restriction on a Confluence page'), and target ('user or group'). It specifies the operation parameter as 'read' or 'update' and the mutual exclusivity of account_id and group. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'confluence_restriction_grant' and 'confluence_restriction_get'.

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 provides clear constraints (operation values, mutual exclusivity) and implies usage for revocation. It mentions mirroring a CLI command, giving additional context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, though sibling names strongly indicate complementary tools.

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