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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so 'Destructive. Not idempotent.' mostly restates structured data. The description nonetheless earns credit for context the annotations cannot carry: the authorization precondition (bound active Seat in the same Space) and the post-condition that the capability URL fails closed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier, then consequence, then prerequisite. Nothing is wasted and no sentence merely pads the description.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the important contract: what is revoked, the permission gate, the fail-closed effect, and non-idempotency. It stops short of saying what the call returns or how to confirm the revoke succeeded, which would be the last useful detail for a destructive one-way operation.

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% and the anchor_id description already explains it is the share-link id returned by create_anchor, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only repeats 'by anchor_id' and adds nothing about idempotency_key or retry semantics beyond what the parameter already documents; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Revoke') plus the exact resource ('an Anchor') and the keying parameter ('by anchor_id'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like revoke_invite or revoke_seat. The follow-on clause ('the capability URL fails closed') makes the outcome unambiguous rather than just naming an operation.

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 real precondition – 'Requires a bound active Seat in the same Space' – so an agent can self-check before calling. It does not explicitly contrast against siblings such as revoke_seat or create_anchor, but the resource scoping plus the stated prerequisite makes the usage context clear.

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