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

Adds genuine context beyond annotations by naming the blast radius: the Seat can no longer act and unused invites it minted expire. The trailing 'Destructive. Not idempotent.' merely restates destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so it earns no additional credit.

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 followed by impact, with no filler. Every clause that is not a pure annotation restatement carries 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers action and side effects adequately. It leaves open whether the revocation is reversible via recover_seat, which matters for a destructive 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 single optional idempotency_key is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description says 'Not idempotent' without connecting that to the available idempotency_key, missing a chance to explain how retries stay safe.

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 ('Revoke this Seat immediately') so the agent knows exactly the operation. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as revoke_invite or recover_seat, which would require opening those schemas.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb — an agent can infer this is the way to deactivate a Seat. There is no statement of when revocation is required versus when to use recover_seat, and no preconditions or warnings beyond the word 'immediately'.

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