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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses several important traits: immediate effect, subsequent payments defaulting to DENY, user-only operation, and a required wallet signature over the revocation statement. It does not state whether revocation is reversible, whether in-flight payments are affected, or what error modes exist, but the key destructive consequence and auth condition are present.

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, front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information: user-only restriction, immediate effect, default-deny consequence, and signature requirement. There is no filler or repetition.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is under-specified. It covers the revocation effect and signature requirement, but does not explain most parameter meanings or the permission model beyond '[USER ONLY]'. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the calling contract remains incomplete.

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 compensate for six undocumented parameters. It only adds meaning for 'signature' by saying it must be the user's wallet signature over the revocation statement. The required 'owner', 'scope', 'revoked_through', 'created_at', and optional 'agent_id' parameters remain unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: revoke a policy chain. It also distinguishes the action from sibling policy tools by naming revocation rather than setting, getting, or requesting a policy change. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the 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?

The description implies usage through '[USER ONLY]' and the immediate-effect warning, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as request_policy_change or set_policy. It gives context but no exclusions or sibling routing. This is minimally adequate usage guidance.

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