remove_flow_owner

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool uses an unofficial, unsupported Microsoft endpoint, behavior may change, and it requires setting ENABLE_WRITE_OPS=true. These are critical behavioral traits not captured by the structured 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 highly efficient: it leads with the action, includes the HTTP method and endpoint, notes the disabled state, lists parameters, and warns about the unsupported API—all in two compact sentences without unnecessary fluff.

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?

For a simple permission-revocation tool, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the endpoint, required parameters, the disabled flag, and the risk of the unsupported API. It doesn't describe the return value, but no output schema exists, and the behavior is straightforward enough that this omission is acceptable.

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% (all three parameters are described in the schema). The description reiterates the parameter names and required/optional status but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('a principal's access to a flow'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like delete_flow (which deletes the flow itself) and add_flow_owner (which grants access).

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 through the verb 'Revoke' and mentions it is disabled by default, but doesn't explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. It gives context about the unsupported endpoint, which serves as a caution, but no formal 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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