Remove admin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Revoke' implies a destructive/mutative action, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, is reversible, affects system state, or has side effects. For a security-sensitive admin tool, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't include any unnecessary information. For such a simple action, this brevity is appropriate.

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 this is a destructive admin tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover parameter meaning, behavioral implications, success/failure conditions, or relationships with sibling tools. The agent lacks crucial information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'userAddress' parameter. It doesn't explain what format this address should be (e.g., email, wallet address, username), where to find it, or what happens if an invalid address is provided. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Revoke administrator access' clearly states the action (revoke) and resource (administrator access), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't specify what system or context this applies to (Strato platform) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'strato.admin.dismiss-issue' or 'strato.admin.add-admin' beyond the obvious inverse relationship.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must currently be an admin), consequences, or relationships with sibling tools like 'strato.admin.add-admin' for adding admin access. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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