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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Revoke' implies a destructive or irreversible action, but the description doesn't disclose the immediacy, irreversibility, or any side effects (e.g., whether the key becomes unusable instantly, whether related resources are affected). The word 'immediately' adds some context but is insufficient for a revocation operation.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is appropriately sized, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming verbose.

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 revocation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the effect of revocation, whether it's reversible, or what happens to the agent's access. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral context is missing.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is clear about the key and agentId. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't compensate or add value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('a delegated child key'), which clearly identifies the action. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the title 'Revoke a sub-agent' and the description align well with the tool's function. It is distinguishable from siblings like mint_subagent and list_subagents.

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 implies the tool is for revoking a previously delegated key, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention prerequisites like the key being active. The schema references mint_subagent and list_subagents, which gives context, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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