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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the auth requirement (CONNECT_API_KEY) and the on-chain gas requirement (ETH on Base), which signals this is a real transaction with cost, plus the scoping semantics of the context parameter. It stops short of saying whether revocation is reversible or what happens to the underlying attestation.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then scoping, then prerequisites. Every sentence carries information, though the context-scoping sentence duplicates what the schema already states, which is the only minor waste.

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 destructive, on-chain mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers action, direction, scoping, and both auth/gas prerequisites. Missing only edge behavior (no-op when nothing to revoke, reversibility), which the idempotentHint partially covers. Adequate for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents both the `to` identity object and the `context` parameter verbatim ('Revoke only this context. Omit to revoke all contexts for the pair.'). The description largely restates that context scoping, adding only the phrase 'for the pair' framing. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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), resource (active trust attestations), direction (from the API key owner to a target), and the optional scoping parameter. An agent can immediately distinguish this from connect_trust_create, connect_trust_check, and connect_trust_graph without opening any 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 the when (undo an existing trust relationship) and gives prerequisites (CONNECT_API_KEY, ETH on Base), but never explicitly names an alternative or a when-not condition. No guidance on what happens if no matching attestation exists, or how it relates to connect_trust_check for verification first.

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