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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses permanence, that the operation works even when the city is closed, and that a human must re-enroll afterwards. It also states the authentication mechanism and warns against passing tokens as arguments.

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 with the core action and consequences, then organized into labeled 'When to use', 'Notes', and 'Example' sections. Every sentence carries information, though the labeled structure is slightly heavier than strictly necessary for a single-parameter tool.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, it covers irreversibility, authentication setup, the post-condition (human re-enrollment), and an example call. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds a concrete example payload {"reason":"Task finished"} that shows the expected shape and tone of the reason string. No further constraints are added beyond the schema's 500-char limit.

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 ('Permanently revoke the authenticated agent's mandate'), scoped to the caller's own mandate. This clearly separates it from the sibling my_mandate, which inspects rather than revokes.

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?

An explicit 'When to use' clause constrains invocation to the case where a guarantor or task requires leaving the city, and the tool is marked as a last resort ('only when'). It stops short of naming the sibling to consult first, but the intent is clear.

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