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, and it delivers: it states side effects (domain control proof and sibling delegations stay valid), propagation into the proof registry/CRL/status lookup, idempotency semantics on repeat calls, the difference from proof revocation, and the derived fields in the result.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, side effects, idempotency, result fields, and authentication are each covered without filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses formatting to separate access guidance.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: authentication, side effects, idempotency, registry propagation, and key result fields. It does not specify the exact response body or error behavior for unauthorized calls, but it provides enough for an agent to invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both id and reason. The description adds context around the ph_dlg_ handle but does not meaningfully extend parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at the baseline.

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 opening phrase 'Revoke ONE delegation' gives a specific verb, resource, and scope in one line. It also explicitly contrasts the tool with revoke_proof and clarifies it operates on delegations, not proofs, which distinguishes it from relevant siblings.

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 provides clear operational guidance: the tool requires a Proof account, the client must be authenticated first, and start_login does not enable this tool. It also explains how this tool relates to revoke_proof, though it stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' rule.

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