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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive mutation. The description adds the auth header requirement, which is useful context, but it does not explain consequences like what happens to the revoked delegation or whether the action is reversible.

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 a single sentence, making it concise, but the wording is vague and formulaic ('Execute the canonical ... operation'), which wastes the opportunity to convey real information. It is short but not well-structured for agent understanding.

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?

Despite having annotations and an output schema, the description is inadequate for a destructive mutation tool. It fails to explain the purpose, side effects, or when to use it, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the tool name and schema. This is a dangerous gap for a high-stakes operation.

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% for both parameters (delegation_id and idempotency_key), so the schema fully documents their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Execute the canonical Direct Session revoke_worker_delegation operation' merely restates the tool name without explaining what revoking a delegation actually does. It does not specify the effect or scope, and while the name suggests a clear verb+resource, the description adds no insight beyond the title.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_worker_delegation or approve_direct_session. The only additional information is the Authorization: Bearer header requirement, which is a prerequisite but not a usage guideline.

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