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

Discloses two behaviors beyond the annotations: only the caller's own side is revoked, and the call 'returns completion after pack state is recalculated,' implying a side effect. It does not say what happens if invoked after deposit, whether revocation is reversible, or what error surfaces — gaps that matter for a non-idempotent mutation.

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-loads the action and constraint efficiently. Slight redundancy in the opening 'Revoke signoff. Revoke the caller side's...' plus the full Chinese restatement, which doubles length without adding information.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential shape: what is revoked, whose, the pre-deposit timing gate, and that state is recalculated. Missing pieces like permission requirements and post-deposit behavior are noted elsewhere but not fatal for calling 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, yet it only restates that order_pack_id and the line_id entries inside lines identify what to revoke. request_id is never explained (idempotency key? correlation id?), and the lines array shape and limits are unaddressed.

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+resource ('Revoke signoff') and narrows the scope: 'the caller side's active signoffs for order_pack_id and lines of line_id before deposit.' That is enough to distinguish it from sign_order_pack_lines, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('before deposit') and an explicit exclusion ('not available to AI agents' / 'AI 不能调用'). It does not name the alternative action an agent should take instead, which keeps it short of a 5.

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