aap_revoke_role

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns a JSON confirmation string, but it doesn't disclose idempotency, failure behavior, or side effects. No contradiction with 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 two short sentences, clearly structured with Args and Returns. It front-loads the primary verb and resource, and every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides all necessary information to select and invoke it correctly. It could add preconditions or edge cases, but they are not essential for this straightforward revoke action.

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?

The schema fully specifies both parameters with types and minimum values. The description's parameter list adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'Role ID to revoke'), but it essentially restates schema info. Since schema coverage is high, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('RBAC role from an AAP user'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'aap_assign_role' and 'aap_remove_user_from_team'. It states exactly what action is performed without ambiguity.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you need to remove an RBAC role assignment from a user. There is no explicit when-not or alternative guidance, but the sibling context makes it obvious that this is the inverse of 'aap_assign_role'.

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