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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the postcondition: the asset will be marked as revoked and associated proofs will no longer validate. It also discloses the account/authentication requirement. It stops short of mentioning irreversibility, return value, or error behavior, so it is transparent on the core effect but not every operational detail.

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 and front-loaded: the purpose and consequences appear in the first sentence, followed by a succinct access note. Every sentence earns its place, including the start_login warning, which prevents a common authentication misunderstanding. There is no redundancy or 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 a simple one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is revoked, what the side effect is, and how to authorize the call. It is slightly incomplete because it does not mention alternative revoke tools or whether revocation is reversible, but the core facts needed to call it correctly are present.

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?

There is only one parameter, id, and the schema already describes it as 'Asset ID' with 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. This is the baseline 3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke a verified asset by ID.' It immediately distinguishes this from sibling revoke tools by naming the asset as the target and by stating the consequence for associated proofs. The scope is unambiguous and well differentiated from revoke_proof, revoke_authorization, and similar mutations.

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 access note gives clear preconditions: a Proof account is required, the client must be authenticated, and the caller should invoke this tool again after authenticating. It also usefully warns that start_login does NOT open this tool. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for related cases (e.g., revoke_proof), so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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