Revoke sale access

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the required scope (edit_sales) and the confirmation requirement, both of which are not in the 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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action, then endpoint/scope, then a safety-relevant constraint. 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description supplies scope, confirmation requirement, and native endpoint mapping, which is solid. It could go further by noting the inverse relationship to restore_sale_access or the irreversibility implication, but the essentials are present.

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 the schema already documents account, confirm, and sale_id with meaningful descriptions including the confirmation guidance. The description's note about explicit per-call confirmation reinforces the schema's confirm parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct.

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) and resource (sale access), which is clear enough to distinguish from close siblings like restore_sale_access and refund_sale. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the inverse relationship is obvious from the verb.

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?

Adds 'Requires explicit per-call confirmation,' which is a genuine usage condition, and the mapping to the native endpoint helps the agent place the call. It doesn't name restore_sale_access as the inverse action or state when NOT to use this, so it falls short of an explicit alternatives statement.

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