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

Beyond the destructive annotation, the description explains that new purchases are blocked while reserved or in-flight payments may still settle and require reconciliation. It also clarifies non-effects: no Stripe customer deletion and no prior-charge refunds, which is valuable behavioral context for this mutation.

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?

Three sentences, each doing useful work: the action, the settlement caveat, and the explicit non-effects. It is front-loaded and free of 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 one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and non-effects well. The remaining gap is the lack of authorization_id semantics, but the overall context is sufficient to invoke it 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?

The only parameter, authorization_id, is named but not explained beyond its schema name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should define the identifier's source or format, but it only states that revocation is performed by authorization_id.

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 uses a specific verb, "Revoke," names the exact resource, "saved-card spending permission," and scopes it to the authenticated machine's own authorization_id. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_card_authorization and sync_card_authorization.

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 by the revocation action, but the description does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives such as sync_card_authorization or state when not to use it. The caveats clarify consequences rather than selection criteria.

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