Revoke Achievement

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

Annotations already mark this destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: username lookup scans recipient pages and rejects ambiguous repeated awards, and the operation requires group Maintainer/Owner. It stops short of describing failure/return behavior, hence a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the identifier options, then the edge case and prerequisite. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 mutation with zero required params and no output schema, the description covers invocation paths, ambiguity handling, and authorization. Only the result/failure behavior is left implicit, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists to document it.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most fields; the description still adds the key semantic point that the two parameter sets are mutually exclusive alternatives and reinforces that userAchievementId targets a single award. It does not spell out the username-paging cost beyond the ambiguity note, but it clearly outperforms schema-only understanding.

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 and resource ('Revoke one awarded achievement') and implicitly distinguishes itself from create/update/delete_achievement siblings, which operate on the definition rather than an award. The description also clarifies that userAchievementId identifies an award, not the achievement definition, sharpening the boundary further.

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?

Gives explicit alternative invocation modes ('either userAchievementId, or group + achievementId + username') plus a fallback rule for ambiguous repeated awards and a required permission level. An agent knows exactly which parameter combination to pick and when to avoid the username path.

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