winops_acl_revoke

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by specifying the return format (JSON with success, path, user) and providing an example, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The return format and example are useful but add some length; however, they are directly relevant to usage. No wasted words.

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 (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action, return format, and an example. It could mention that this is a destructive operation (though annotations cover that) or clarify that it only affects explicit permissions, not inherited ones, but the current text is adequate.

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 schema already documents both parameters (path and user). The description adds minimal extra meaning—it doesn't clarify path format (e.g., Windows vs. UNC) or user format (e.g., domain\user). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 all explicit permissions for a user or group on a file or directory.' It uses a specific verb (revoke) and resource (file/directory), and the scope ('all explicit permissions') distinguishes it from sibling tools like winops_acl_grant and winops_acl_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 implies usage for revoking permissions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like winops_acl_grant or winops_acl_inheritance. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., needing existing explicit permissions) or when not to use it.

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