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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds two critical behavioral traits: 'Verifiers see it immediately' (synchronization/visibility) and 'Requires the organization API key' (prerequisite authentication requirement). These add significant operational context.

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 highly concise, packing necessary operational information—action, scenario, real-time effect, and authorization requirement—into three tightly worded sentences.

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?

Given the high schema coverage and the destructive nature of the tool, the description is complete. It answers the 'what,' 'why,' 'how to authorize,' and 'what happens next' questions for the agent.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents the parameters thoroughly. The description provides high-level context but does not add specific semantic meaning to the passport_id or reason fields beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly states the function (Revoke one of your passports), names the specific resource, and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like passport_issue or passport_list.

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?

It provides clear scenarios for usage, such as when an 'agent was retired or compromised,' which acts as a strong conditional usage guideline. It implies the intent clearly without needing an explicit 'when-not' clause.

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