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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-redundant detail: that the action is irreversible and that public history survives while the wallet link is removed. It does not address auth requirements (must the caller own the key?) or confirmation behavior, so it exceeds the annotation bar only modestly.

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 terse clauses, front-loaded with the primary effect and followed by the two facts that most affect the agent's decision (irreversibility, residual history). 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequences but omits the parameter's identity/format and any authorization precondition. Adequate but leaves real gaps.

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?

The single required 'key' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The agent cannot tell whether the key is the caller's own key, a target identity's key, or what format is expected.

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?

States a specific verb (revoke) and resource (your identity / its wallet link) with the permanence scope made explicit. An agent can distinguish it from read-only siblings, though it never names the closest alternative (rotate_key) or clarifies how 'identity' relates to the 'key' parameter.

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?

No statement of when this should be chosen over alternatives such as rotate_key, pause_participation, or withdraw_learning. Irreversibility is noted but that is a consequence, not routing guidance.

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