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

The description says the tool revokes authority, which is a destructive mutation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction and undermines the agent's ability to understand the operation's safety profile.

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 two short sentences plus a cost note, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every sentence contributes useful information without padding.

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?

It covers the action, default cascade behavior, usage trigger, and cost, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive revocation operation, the description does not resolve or correct the contradictory safety annotations, leaving a critical gap in the overall definition.

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 the schema already documents lease_id, reason, cascade, and payment_signature. The description adds context by noting cascade is enabled by default, but does not add significant meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Revoke a lease') plus scope ('whole subtree') and default behavior. Clearly distinguishes from sibling lease operations such as vc_lease_issue, vc_lease_consume, and vc_lease_status.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Use when an agent is misbehaving or a task is cancelled.' It does not name when-not-to-use cases or alternative tools, but the triggering conditions are clear.

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