Revoke a runtime permission

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes beyond them by spelling out the concrete consequence ('the app loses the permission immediately and may fail until it is granted again'). It does not mention the actual command output or whether a device must be targeted, but the added failure-mode context is genuine value.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action and its CLI equivalent, the second front-loads the 'Destructive:' warning and the user-visible effect. No filler, nothing that could be cut.

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 simple 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, command form, and destructive consequence, which is enough to call it safely. It omits any note on idempotency or on the optional device parameter, but those are minor for this tool's complexity.

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% — all three parameters carry descriptions with concrete examples ('com.example.app', 'android.permission.CAMERA') and the optional-device rule. The description only mirrors the `<package> <permission>` ordering already implied by required params, adding essentially nothing new, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Revoke a runtime permission from an app') and even quotes the underlying `pm revoke <package> <permission>` invocation, so there is no ambiguity about the operation. It does not name its inverse sibling grant_permission, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the inverse of grant_permission from the sibling list, but the description never says when to revoke versus when to use grant_permission, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that the permission must currently be granted).

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