vendor_portal_revoke

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses critical behaviors: it never deletes the row (preserving audit trail), it is idempotent (revoking an already-revoked grant is a no-op), and it stamps a timestamp that denies access. This is beyond what the schema provides.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action and effect. It efficiently packs important details about fencing and idempotency into a few sentences. It could be more structured but is not wasteful.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a single-action tool: it explains the effect, the fencing, the no-delete policy, and idempotency. However, it lacks explicit parameter semantics and does not mention required fields, but given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It does not mention workspaceId, grantId, actor, or idempotencyKey. The grantId is implicit but not explicitly described. The lack of parameter detail 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 clearly states the specific action: revoking a vendor portal access (US-F03.4). It uses precise verbs and resources, and explicitly mentions the effect (stamps revoked_at, denies as grant_invalid). This distinguishes it from related tools like portal_grant_revoke and vendor_portal_grants_list.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when revoking a vendor portal access. It also gives an exclusion: 'Fenced to kind=vendor (a non-vendor id returns not_found), so the vendor verb never touches a customer grant.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for revoking other grant types, but the fenced scope implies it.

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