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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations: it scopes the blast radius (domain control proof and sibling delegations remain valid), discloses the mirroring side-effect into the proof registry affecting CRL/status list/public lookup, and specifies the exact idempotent response semantics versus a PROOF's already_revoked. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot 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?

Front-loads the core action and scope in the first sentence, then layers behavior and access. It is dense but nearly every clause carries non-redundant information; the ACCESS paragraph is a bit promotional but operationally useful.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it explains the derived return fields (effective_status/is_valid alongside stored status), the side-effects, the idempotency contract, and the auth requirement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% with only two params, so the schema already documents the id format and the reason enum. The description adds essentially no parameter-level detail (e.g., reason defaults), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Revoke ONE delegation') and immediately bounds scope with 'ONE', distinguishing it from bulk or sibling revocation paths. It names revoke_proof and the ph_dlg_ handle explicitly, so an agent can separate this from revoke_proof without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: idempotency expectation, the relationship to revoke_proof via the ph_dlg_ handle, and explicit access prerequisites including the /mcp Authenticate flow and the fact that start_login does not grant access. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing rule for the two revoke tools, so it is not a full 5.

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