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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the other side is notified (a side effect), a token is required (auth), and both privileged callers are named. It omits error behavior and whether revocation is reversible or idempotent, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded, then side effect, then id sourcing and auth. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers who may invoke it, the required auth, the notification side effect, and how to find the id. The remaining gap is failure/idempotency behavior, which an agent would need for full confidence.

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 coverage is 0% and the single delegation_id parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description explains that it is the delegation's id and tells the agent where to source it (the list tools). That adds genuine meaning beyond the bare integer type, though it gives no format or validity nuance beyond exclusiveMinimum.

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 (delegation) scoped by id, and clarifies the two authorization modes (owner revoking access vs. delegate declining). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like accept_delegation and delegate_service.

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, which is real usage guidance rather than pointer-free text. It does not state when not to use it or how it differs from accept_delegation beyond the inherent opposite action, so it stops short of 5.

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