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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the effect on unclaimed credentials, the downstream refusal of the child agent that registered with it, and that repeated revocation is a no-op. This is exactly the kind of destruction/idempotency context an agent needs before a write.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by effects and idempotency. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effects, downstream impact, and idempotency well. The only gap is sourcing the credential_id, which the parameter discussion leaves unaddressed.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description carries the burden — and it only hints at provenance ('you minted'), never stating the ID format or where to retrieve it (e.g., from a mint response or list_my_credentials). Minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

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+resource (revoke a delegated credential) and scopes it to credentials the caller minted, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_my_credentials or register_agent. An agent knows exactly what action this performs without opening the schema.

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 consequences described imply when revocation is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., inspect first via list_my_credentials). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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