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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the action is irreversible, that the proof token will no longer validate anywhere (status endpoint, public validator, revocation list, Token Status List), and that only the proof is revoked—not the underlying asset/consent/delegation. It also mentions the access requirement. This is thorough and transparent about the tool's side effects.

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 well-structured: the first paragraph states the core action and effects, and the second handles access. It is longer than minimal but every sentence contributes either to purpose, scope, or usage. It front-loads the essential 'what it does' and 'what happens' before the access note. No 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 mutation tool with irreversible effects and an access requirement, the description covers: what it does, how to identify the target, the full impact across all validation endpoints, irreversibility, scope limitation, and authentication steps. It does not have an output schema, so return values are not needed. The only minor gap is not specifying what the response looks like, but that is not critical for correct invocation.

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% — both parameters are described in the schema. The description repeats the id format exactly as the schema does ('Public proof handle (ph_ctl_* / ph_dlg_*) or verification ID') without adding new meaning. It does not elaborate on the 'reason' parameter. Since the schema already carries the semantics, the description adds no extra value, earning the baseline 3.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Revoke a proof' and specifies the exact identifier formats (ph_ctl_* / ph_dlg_* or verification ID). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling revoke tools (revoke_asset, revoke_authorization, revoke_delegation) by stating it revokes only the PROOF, not the underlying asset/consent/delegation, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

It provides clear context: the tool takes the same addresses as get_proof_status, and clarifies the scope (only the proof, not the underlying object). It also gives an explicit exclusion ('start_login does NOT open this tool') and authentication prerequisites. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the scope statement implies when to use this vs. related revoke tools.

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