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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive consequence of revoking the active signing credential ('kill switch') and notes idempotency, which is valuable. It doesn't detail authorization or side effects beyond that, but covers the key behaviors.

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 sentences, zero redundancy, with the most important caution (kill switch) front-loaded. Efficient and purposeful.

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 tool with one parameter, the description covers the action, the critical edge case, and idempotency. It lacks explicit alternatives or authorization requirements, but that's minor for this context.

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 schema provides the parameter with a pattern and requirement, but 0% description coverage means the description must explain. The description implies the id is a credential identifier, but doesn't add much beyond 'by id'. The schema pattern itself is informative.

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 clearly states the action ('Revoke one of the subject's credentials by id'), the resource (credential) and the parameter needed (credential_id). It distinguishes from siblings like rotate_credential by describing a revoke operation, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 conveys when to use this tool—when revoking a credential by id—and highlights the critical scenario of revoking the active signing credential as a kill switch. It doesn't explicitly contrast with rotate_credential or other alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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