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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial nuance the annotations cannot: existing submitted consultations survive, only future proxy submit/modify/withdraw actions are rejected. It also frames expected_version as the current permission version, hinting at optimistic-concurrency semantics, though it does not state what a version mismatch returns.

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?

Front-loaded English summary followed by actionable Korean detail; every sentence adds scope, behavior, or procedure. Slightly redundant across the two languages, which keeps it just under top marks.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, it covers the essentials: what is preserved, what stops working, and the confirmation step. What happens on version conflict or what the call returns is left unstated, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

With only one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does so: expected_version is explained as 'the current permission version' to send, giving meaning beyond the bare integer/min-1 schema. A minor gap is that version-mismatch handling is never described.

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 and resource ('Revoke AI consultation permission') and immediately scopes it with 'without withdrawing existing consultations'. That scoping clause lets an agent distinguish this from the consultation-cancellation siblings without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the triggering situation (user asks to revoke the delegation) and adds a clear exclusion plus a procedural guardrail: 'distinguish from withdrawing the consultation itself' and 'confirm once before calling'. It does not name the specific sibling tool used for full withdrawal, which keeps it from a 5.

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