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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the endpoint, authentication requirement (X-NW-User-Key), 404 behavior when account_address has no active mirror, the fact that the mirror row is retained with status revoked and revoked_at, and that later plans are refused until consent again. These are substantial behavioral details not covered by the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then efficiently covers required parameters, branching behavior, and consequences. Every sentence carries useful operational information without repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately covers the endpoint, auth requirement, semantic branches, failure mode, and persistent effects of revocation. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate outcomes.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 50%, the description explains both parameters: vault_id is required, and account_address scopes revocation to a single account while omitting it revokes all active mirrors. This adds meaning well beyond the schema's brief account_address note.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('Stop mirroring a Forge vault') and gives the exact endpoint. It distinguishes the operation from mirror creation/consent by focusing on revocation and its scoped effects.

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 clearly explains the two invocation modes: with account_address revoke only that account's mirror, and without it revoke every active mirror. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools such as forge_mirror_consent, but the operational context is clear.

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