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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior, and it does so thoroughly: it states that access and tokens are revoked, that revocation cannot be undone, that the operation cascades to child agents, and that the first call only previews and returns a confirm_token.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: the core action and consequences come first, followed by listing mode and the two-call workflow. 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?

The description covers the critical aspects: what is revoked, irreversibility, cascading behavior, listing mode, and the preview/confirm mechanism. It does not describe the final response after a successful confirmation call, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but the essential calling contract is clear.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains agent, token, and confirm_token. The description adds useful workflow context around the two-call pattern, but most parameter meaning is already present in the input schema, so no higher score is warranted.

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 identifies the action ('Retire (revoke) an agent you added'), the resource (an agent), and the cascading effect on every agent it added. It also distinguishes listing mode from revocation mode, making its purpose unambiguous relative to siblings like revoke_org_share.

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 gives explicit usage context: call with no agent to list live agents, and use the two-call flow to preview then confirm revocation. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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