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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns a JSON revocation receipt, cites GDPR Art. 7/17 compliance, and states the per-call cost. It does not contradict annotations.

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 with the core action front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct information: operation, return value, compliance, and cost. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the operation, return format, compliance, and cost. It does not describe error behavior for already-revoked or invalid grants, but the output schema likely covers that, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 each parameter (grant_id, grantor_wallet, wallet_signature) already has a clear schema description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Revoke') with a precise resource ('previously issued memory grant') and adds the temporal qualifier 'immediately'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory.grant and memory.attest without requiring schema inspection.

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 phrase 'previously issued memory grant' implies this tool is for existing grants, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus memory.grant or other memory tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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