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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the immediate drop of the credential, the failure impact on existing holders, irreversibility, and the recovery path of minting a new lease. It also states the return shape. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the action and consequence, irreversibility, prerequisite check, and return value. Information is front-loaded with the purpose and immediate effect, followed by practical guidance, with no filler.

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 an irreversible destructive operation with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the behavior, the consequence, the prerequisite check, the irreversibility, and the return format. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and anticipate the outcome.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual guidance about checking list_leases first, but the leaseId parameter's provenance is already documented in the schema. No additional parameter semantics are introduced beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Revoke'), a precise resource ('temporary-access lease'), and a concrete mechanism ('leased database credential is dropped at the target'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling revoke tools like revoke_token and revoke_invite by describing the unique resource and consequence.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context ('now instead of waiting for it to expire') and a when-not-to-use condition ('an already-expired lease needs no revoking'). It also directs the agent to list_leases first. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools for other revocation needs, so it misses the full 'alternatives' element.

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