zitadel_revoke_org_manager

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

Adds beyond annotations: the last-ORG_OWNER guard is a concrete safety constraint and the confirm:true requirement is a behavioral contract. Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so this supplements with operational detail. Slightly short on what happens on guard failure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the default behavior, then the guard and confirm requirement. No 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?

Covers purpose, omissible roles, safety guard, and confirm. Lacks detail on error behavior if guard triggers or required auth level, but sufficient for correct invocation given schema and annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the semantic of omitting roles (removes entire manager membership) and the confirm gate, which enriches understanding beyond raw field descriptions.

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?

Specific verb (revoke) + resource (org-level manager role) + object (user). Clearly distinguished from its inverse sibling zitadel_grant_org_manager and from zitadel_remove_user_grant.

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?

States behavior when roles are omitted, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions needed). Usage is implied rather than guided.

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