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 genuinely new context beyond structured fields: the operation requires the organization API key (an auth prerequisite) and that a human-side revocation path exists. It does not state what state is left behind after revocation, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary effect front-loaded and the auth requirement and alternative path trailing as supporting detail. Nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose, auth prerequisite, and an alternative revocation path, while annotations handle the destructive/idempotent profile and the schema handles parameters. With no output schema, no return-value explanation is needed, leaving only minor gaps around post-revocation state.

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%: mandate_id is documented as an 'mdt_... ID' and reason as 'Why'. The description adds no format, constraint, or example detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific action and resource: stopping an agent from spending under a mandate, which is precisely what revoke means. An agent can distinguish this from mandate_spend and mandate_create without opening the schema. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but the effect-based wording is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical establishes one alternative path (the human can revoke from the sign_url page), which implies when an agent might defer to the human flow. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when an agent should call this versus mandate_check, mandate_get, or mandate_list, so usage is only implied.

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