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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds concrete value by specifying exactly what the destructive action shuts down (the HTML page, the API, and the download), which the annotations do not 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the credential requirement and effect follow in order of importance.

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 mutation with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, the mandatory credential, and the blast radius of the action. Remaining gaps (reversibility, failure modes) are minor given the idempotent and destructive hints.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does clarify the roles: publicId is an identifier that confers no control on its own, and revokeSecret is the distinct credential that authorizes revocation. It does not give format, length, or error behavior for either parameter, so it only partially compensates.

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 (révoquer) and resource (un document publié), plus the scope of the effect. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names the counterpart sibling law_publish_answer, so the differentiation from siblings is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description makes clear the operation applies to an already-published document and that a distinct revoke secret is mandatory ('L'identifiant public à lui seul ne donne aucun contrôle'). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative.

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