revoke

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the admin-only authorization, the demotion behavior, and a guardrail against removing the last admin. It does not explain reversibility or the meaning of 'default class', but the core side effects are present.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the permission requirement and then states the action and limitation, making every clause useful.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and a key guardrail, and it makes the admin prerequisite explicit. However, the complete absence of parameter-level guidance means the description is not fully self-contained for an agent without domain knowledge.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either `project` or `working_folder` beyond their names. Since both parameters are required strings with no schema descriptions, the agent must infer their meaning entirely from external context, which is a significant gap.

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 phrase, 'drop a project back to the default class', which clearly identifies the resource and the outcome. It goes beyond the bare tool name 'revoke' and is distinct from related mutation tools like grant or update_project.

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 states an explicit prerequisite ('Admin only') and an explicit when-not condition ('Cannot revoke the last admin'). It does not name alternative tools or contrast with siblings like grant, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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