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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does add useful constraints: only active or pending authorizations can be revoked and authentication is required. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or error behavior for this destructive revoke operation.

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 short and front-loaded, but the first two sentences repeat the same status restriction. The ACCESS paragraph is useful but also somewhat redundant with the authentication instruction. It is compact, though not maximally tight.

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 two-parameter revoke tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: status eligibility and authentication steps are covered. It lacks explicit guidance on what happens after revocation or why an agent should choose this over a sibling revoke tool.

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 id and reason are already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable but not an enhancement over the schema.

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 and resource: 'Revoke an active or pending authorization.' It also adds a status constraint that helps define what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as revoke_auth_session or revoke_delegation, so it stops short of a top score.

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 concrete invocation guidance: a Proof account is required, the client must be authenticated first, and start_login does not open this tool. It does not compare this tool to sibling revoke tools, but the authentication flow and status precondition provide clear usage context.

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