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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses permanence/irreversibility, explicitly scopes the blast radius (drafts, reservations, funded work untouched), and states no refund or money movement occurs. It omits error/authorization failure behavior and whether the grant must currently be active.

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 tight clauses: irreversible action first, effect scope second, auth requirement last. Zero filler, and the most consequential fact (permanence) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical semantics: irreversibility, what survives the revoke, absence of money movement, and the auth requirement. The one real gap is grant_id identification.

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% for the single parameter and the description never explains grant_id — no format, no indication of where to obtain it, beyond the vague hint that it refers to 'a budget you own.' The one parameter an agent must supply is essentially undocumented.

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 with scope: 'Permanently revoke new delegations under a budget you own.' The contrast with the opposite operation (set_delegation_budget) is inferable, but the description never names that sibling 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?

It clarifies what is and isn't affected ('Existing task drafts, reservations and funded work remain unchanged'), which implies the use case is stopping future delegations only. However it never says when to choose this over set_delegation_budget or what prerequisites (besides API key) must hold.

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