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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely useful context: the effect is immediate ('Its key stops working at once') and irreversible ('cannot be restored'), plus an auth requirement. It stops short of explaining the response or the practical meaning of idempotency here.

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 and its consequence. Every sentence carries distinct information with zero 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?

For a destructive single-param tool, annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers the parameter, leaving the description to add immediacy and irreversibility, which it does. Only the return behavior is unaddressed (no output schema).

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 a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents agent_id fully (including its UUID pattern and provenance from tower_list_agents). The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond it, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Revoke an agent') that is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tower_create_agent. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast against any alternative tool.

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?

There is a prerequisite ('Needs an organization key') but no statement of when to reach for this tool versus siblings like tower_create_agent or tower_compensate. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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