Revoke a lead's consent

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful context: required scope leads:write, OAuth scope luca:draft, redaction sensitivity, and the Idempotency-Key requirement with server-side key generation as fallback. It stops short of saying what revocation actually affects (e.g. in-flight campaigns or scheduled sends), which keeps it from 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then a compact operational block where each line (endpoint, scopes, idempotency, workspace override) carries distinct information. No filler sentences, though the raw REST endpoint line is of marginal value to an agent.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies auth, idempotency, and workspace-override details for a mutation tool, leaving only the downstream effects of revocation unaddressed.

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 60% and the description largely restates what the schema already says for workspaceId/workspaceSlug/idempotencyKey rather than adding new semantics. The undocumented body fields (channel, purpose) are self-describing enums, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (revoke), resource (lead consent), and qualifier (for a channel purpose) in the first sentence. The direction is unambiguous, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from the sibling luca_leads_consents_grant without opening either schema.

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 operational mechanics (scopes, idempotency, workspace override) but never says when this tool should be selected over alternatives or what business condition triggers a revocation. No mention of the grant counterpart or any prerequisite/state requirement for revocation.

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