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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the important context that the revocation must be 'owner-signed', which is a meaningful precondition beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose effects, reversibility, or any failure modes.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and object. It is appropriately sized for an API that appears to require a single signed revocation object, though it is somewhat terse.

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?

This is a destructive, state-changing operation with a nested opaque parameter and no output schema. The description provides only a minimal phrase and lacks critical context such as the shape of a valid revocation, how the owner signature is verified, what happens after revocation, and any side effects. An agent would likely need to inspect other sources to invoke this safely.

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%, and the lone 'revocation' parameter is an opaque object with additionalProperties true. The description only calls it 'owner-signed', which adds a small hint, but does not explain the required structure, signature format, or how the object should be constructed. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Apply') and resource ('an owner-signed mandate revocation'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'register_owner_mandate', but the opposing verbs 'revoke' vs 'register' provide enough distinction.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as register_owner_mandate. There is no mention of prerequisites, required context, or scenarios where revocation is appropriate or inappropriate.

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