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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a mutation, but the description earns credit for specifying the concrete consequence: the token becomes invalid after revocation. It also discloses the availability rule (always callable, even with the city closed), adding behavioral context the annotation cannot convey. It does not mention auth/permission requirements.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the availability caveat. Every sentence adds information with no 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?

For a simple one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, consequence, and availability adequately. The notable gap is the required 'motivo' argument, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so an agent still lacks a complete picture of the call.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single required parameter 'motivo'. It never mentions the parameter, its meaning, or its 500-character limit, leaving the agent with no guidance on what to supply. This falls below the baseline 3.

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 ('Revoca il mandato di questo agente') and clarifies the effect as exiting the city, which cleanly separates it from the read-oriented sibling 'mio_mandato'. It does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Adds one availability condition — 'Sempre possibile, anche a città chiusa' — telling the agent the call is never blocked by city state. However, it offers no guidance on when revocation is appropriate versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or side-effect warnings beyond the availability note.

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