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

The description discloses all relevant behavioral traits: it sets status and revoked_at, causes revoked verifiers to disappear from list/get/run, existing runs are kept for audit, and cannot be reversed. Annotations (idempotentHint=true) are consistent because once revoked, re-revoking has no further effect.

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 well-structured and concise, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding important details. A minor improvement could be combining the first two sentences, but it is already efficient.

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 single parameter, the existence of an output schema (implied by the return description), and the rich behavioral details, the description is fully complete. No further information is needed for correct use.

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% with a description for verifier_id. The description adds value by clarifying that it accepts UUID or caller-owned name, which is not in the schema. This aids correct invocation.

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 a verifier you own) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_verifier by explaining that revoked verifiers can be replaced but not un-revoked. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when the tool is applicable (user-owned verifiers) and when it is not (scope=system verifiers, which cause a NotFound). It also provides clear guidance on what to do instead of un-revoking (deploy a fresh verifier).

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