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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing a non-obvious side effect (the other side is notified) and the auth requirement ('Requires: token'), 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: action first, actor roles second, id discovery and auth last. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema mutation whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description supplies the actor semantics, the id source, the auth prerequisite, and the notification side effect. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter's type, requiredness, and source are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the lookup path for the id, which is mildly useful but largely redundant with the schema. No syntax, format, or boundary details (e.g. the exclusiveMinimum) are added.

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 (Revoke) and resource (a delegation), and clarifies the two legitimate actor roles: owner revoking access or a delegate declining their own delegation. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like accept_delegation or list_delegations without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_delegations / list_delegated_to_me to obtain the required id, and states the two conditions under which revocation applies. It stops short of naming the inverse/alternative action (accept_delegation) or stating when revocation is inappropriate, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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