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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds rich context: status change, field updates, visibility effects, audit retention, and irreversibility. This goes well beyond annotations, fully disclosing behavioral traits.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses bullet-point style sentences that each add essential information. No redundant or excessive wording.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear output), the description covers all necessary aspects: action, conditions, side effects, irreversibility, and return format. Output schema exists but the description still sufficiently explains the result.

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 100% and the parameter is straightforward (generator_id). The description repeats that it's a UUID but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Revoke') and resource ('user-owned image generator'), with explicit verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying that system-scope generators cannot be revoked and by detailing the post-revocation behavior that differs from deletion tools.

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 explains when to use (user-owned generators) and when not (system generators cause NotFound). It also advises that revocation is irreversible and suggests deploying a fresh generator as an alternative, providing good guidance without explicitly comparing to delete_image_generator.

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