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

The WRITES clause explicitly states this is a state-changing call that is not safe to repeat blindly, matching the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It also discloses nuanced behavior: new bindings are refused, existing bindings stand, and debts are never erased. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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 most important action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by crisp policy consequences and a terse WRITES warning. Every sentence adds information; there is 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?

The description covers the core effect, persistence of existing bindings, and mutation safety. With no output schema, it could still note the result/error behavior or explain the secret parameter, but the essentials needed to avoid destructive misuse 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must supply parameter meaning. It adds that the revoked target is a proved payout address and that the reason is public, but it does not explain id's format or the secret parameter. This is partial compensation only.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Revoke'), a specific resource ('one proved payout address'), and a notable qualifier ('with a public reason'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like revoke_key by naming the payout-address domain and the effect of refusing new bindings.

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 selection context: use it to close a payout route while leaving existing bindings and entitlements intact. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops one short of full routing guidance.

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