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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining forward-only semantics: the anchored history remains verifiable while the proof is marked revoked going forward, and it discloses the API-key auth requirement. The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description is consistent with that rather than contradicting it.

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 zero filler; the operation and its forward-only consequence are front-loaded, and the auth requirement is a brief trailing note.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (what revocation does and does not destroy) plus auth. Remaining minor gaps are proofId provenance and failure behavior when the proof is not owned by the caller.

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 0% and the single proofId parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It partially does by implying the ID refers to a proof the caller created, but gives no format, source, or example of a valid proofId.

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?

States a specific verb (Revoke) and resource (a stamp you created), with the scope/ownership constraint attached. It is distinguishable from siblings like verify_proof or list_proofs, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the precondition 'a stamp you created' – the agent can infer this acts on its own proofs and not others'. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to a sibling such as verify_proof for read-only checks.

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