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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that revoking stops inbound connections, frees the allowance, and is irreversible except by bringing up a new machine. This discloses destructive and irreversible behavior beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, motivating scenario, and behavioral consequence. It is front-loaded and wastes no 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 provides a complete picture of the tool's role within the lifecycle: when to use it, what it does, and what it cannot do. Even without an output schema, the agent has enough context to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

Both parameters (tunnel_id and access_token) are fully described in the schema with references to lease_status and order_lease. The description adds no param-level detail, and the 100% schema coverage makes a baseline 3 appropriate.

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 opens with 'Retire a peer and hand its slot back to the plan's allowance,' using a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies the consequence (stopping inbound connections) and distinguishes itself from lifecycle siblings like create_tunnel and renew_lease.

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 provides a concrete scenario—short-lived workers consuming the allowance—and explains why failing to revoke blocks future provisioning. It also notes that 'promoting another' cannot undo the revocation, effectively steering agents away from an alternative, though no explicit tool name is given.

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