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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: revocation is idempotent, requires no operator intervention, and cannot affect another agent's credential. This discloses retry safety and isolation guarantees that are not present in the annotation or schema.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and the object, and the second adds two critical behavioral facts without redundancy.

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 two-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, self-service, idempotency, and safety scope well. However, both required parameters remain semantically undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent must infer more than ideal for a correct call.

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%, so the description carries the burden for paramerer meaning, but it only indirectly hints at idempotencyKey through the 'idempotent' claim and does not explain credentialId's provenance or format. credentialId is inferable from the phrase 'active participant credential', but idempotencyKey semantics remain largely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Revoke') and a specific resource ('the authenticated agent's active participant credential'), so an agent knows exactly what is acted on. It distinguishes from sibling revoke_owner_mandate by targeting a participant credential and from other revocation flows by explicitly scoping it to the authenticated agent's own credential.

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?

The description establishes a clear self-service use case ('without operator intervention') and implies safe retry via idempotency, which orients an agent toward when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can decide without opening sibling tools.

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