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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds specific behavioral context beyond that: it destroys the session key 'in the same step', causes immediate refusal for anything holding the id, and restricts revocation to the caller's own mandates. It also discloses the auth requirement (Bearer <JWT>). This adds genuine value beyond structured fields with no contradiction.

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 three concise sentences: the action, the destructive consequence, and the authorization requirement. Every sentence earns its place; the front-loaded action makes intent immediately clear.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and clear destructive annotations, the description covers purpose, effect, scope, and auth. The only minor gap is not mentioning the response shape (e.g., success/failure confirmation), but the behavioral disclosure is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the semantic that the mandate must be 'YOUR' (owned by the caller) and reinforces that the id comes from a prior grant/status. This ownership constraint is not in the schema, pushing it above baseline.

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 resource ('mandates by id'), and clarifies the core behavior (kills the session key) in the first sentence. The metaphor 'off switch you name when granting authority' differentiates it from related signet tools like grant or deny.

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 when to use it: revoking a mandate you previously granted ('your mandates', 'off switch you name when granting authority'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as signet_deny or signet_approve, nor state when not to use it, so guidance remains indirect.

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