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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing immediate effects: disappears from directory, stops receiving messages, and minted pairing codes die. It also states the action is not reversible from the other side, adding real operational context beyond destructiveHint.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediate effects, followed by clear use cases and cautions. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

Comprehensive for a revocation tool: it covers what happens, when to use it, user consent, irreversibility, and the path to re-invite. With an output schema and full parameter documentation available, nothing important 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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'handle' parameter and already explains it is the machine to remove and where to get it from ('agents_list'). The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline for high schema coverage applies.

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 and resource: 'Removes another machine from this mesh', and immediately clarifies the scope and consequences. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling mesh tools like invite or join by focusing on removal and its effects.

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 says when to use it: 'when a pairing code may have leaked, or when a machine should no longer see the user's other agents.' It also warns to ask the user first and notes the machine 'has to be invited again', indicating the alternative path after revocation.

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