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

The description openly states that revoking is 'irreversible', which meaningfully supplements the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). It also discloses the conditional behavior based on signing status and mandates a confirmation step before invocation, giving the agent important behavioral context beyond the basic mutation flag.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action and condition, and every sentence adds value. The prerequisite workflow is stated efficiently without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive action with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: applicability condition, required pre-call, confirmation step, and irreversibility. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter (documentId), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. Baseline of 3 applies because the parameter is already well-defined and there is no ambiguity about what the caller must provide.

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 names the exact resource type ('a document that has been sent for signing'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic deletion or creation tools. It also embeds a key scoping condition ('only possible if not yet fully signed'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous among siblings like delete_document and send_draft.

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 guidance: only for documents already sent for signing and only if not fully signed. It also prescribes a required prerequisite workflow ('Always call get_document first... then show the user a summary and ask for confirmation'), which is concrete and actionable for an agent.

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