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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the revocation is signed and anchored, and calls are billed per call via x402 when payments are enabled — cost and permanence context the annotations cannot convey. It repeats the passkey revocation sentence without adding detail on post-revocation effects.

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 core action is front-loaded in one clean sentence. However, the parenthetical about the person revoking with their passkey is restated verbatim in the second sentence, wasting roughly half the text on duplicate information.

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, billed operation with no output schema, the description covers cost and signed/anchored recording, which is helpful. It omits what revocation actually disables (grants, pending tasks, existing receipts) and whether the action is final from the agent's side — important gaps for a destructive tool.

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%, so mandate_id, reason, and privi_pass are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about any of them — not even which id format or why a Privi pass is needed. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 and resource: 'The agent gives up its own mandate.' That separates it from siblings like quantum_mandate_request, quantum_mandate_check, and quantum_mandate_status, which deal with obtaining or inspecting a mandate. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings.

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?

Implies the agent's self-service revocation path and points out the human alternative (revoking on the mandate page with a passkey), which is useful routing context. It never states conditions such as when to revoke versus check status first, or whether preconditions like an active mandate are required.

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