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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description aligns with those by saying 'revoke' and 'Irreversibly.' The word 'Irreversibly' adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, emphasizing that the action cannot be undone. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 extremely concise: 'Irreversibly revoke a delegation.' Every word contributes meaning, and the key qualifier 'Irreversibly' is front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter destructive action, the description and annotations cover the core safety profile and the basic action. However, the description leaves gaps around what 'id' semantically refers to, how the delegation concept connects to delegate_authority, and what irreversible revocation means in practice. It is minimally viable but lacks enough context for an agent to invoke it with full confidence.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining the sole required parameter, 'id.' The description does not explicitly state that 'id' is the delegation identifier or explain how to obtain it, leaving critical meaning implicit. The phrase 'revoke a delegation' weakly implies the id refers to the delegation, but this is not stated.

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, 'revoke,' and identifies the resource, 'a delegation,' making the tool's function immediately clear. It also adds the qualifier 'Irreversibly,' which further distinguishes this mutation from other revocation tools. Among sibling tools like revoke_credential and revoke_webhook, 'revoke a delegation' clearly differentiates the targeted resource.

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 implies the tool should be used when a delegation needs to be revoked, and the sibling list includes delegate_authority, which hints at the counterpart operation. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of preconditions or consequences that would guide an agent's decision.

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