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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further: 'Irreversibly', the fact that queued work and future monitor runs recheck revocation, the limitation on already-sent notices, and the return value. This is behavioral context well beyond the annotation set and consistent with it.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its irreversible nature, then prerequisite, then scope limits, then return value. No filler and no repetition of the annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description still discloses the return value (revoked=true), the required rights scope, and the downstream effects on queued work and monitors. Nothing needed to invoke or reason about consequences is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single id parameter is already documented as the 'Delegation ID returned by delegate_authority.' The description only echoes 'by ID' and adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Irreversibly revoke an owned delegation by ID.' Naming 'delegation' directly ties it to the delegate_authority sibling and separates it from revoke_credential and revoke_webhook, so an agent can pick the right revocation tool without opening schemas.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires rights scope') and tells the agent the boundary of what revocation accomplishes ('stops later authorized actions but does not retract a notice already sent'), which is real guidance on when this is the sufficient tool. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or a when-not-to-use case, so it falls just under a 5.

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