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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'Stops NEW mints', which is a behavioral side effect not covered by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The idempotent hint is also restated, but the new mints detail enhances transparency.

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 two efficient sentences. Each sentence adds unique information: the first states action and permission, the second adds idempotency and side effect. No redundant or irrelevant words.

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?

The description, combined with annotations and output schema (present), fully covers the tool's purpose, side effects, permissions, and idempotency. For an admin tool of moderate complexity, this is complete.

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 100% and both parameters are described adequately in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 a delegation grant by id'), specifies the resource (delegation grant), and adds context (admin+ permission, idempotent, 'Stops NEW mints'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like colony_org_delegation_add and colony_org_delegation_list.

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?

It mentions the required permission ('admin+'), implying who should use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like colony_org_delegation_add or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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