Revoke an identity: it disappears from discovery (terminal) but its record is retained for auditability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | No | ||
| agent_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the identity disappears from discovery but record is retained for auditability, which adds behavioral context. However, without annotations, more details (e.g., irreversibility, side effects, permissions) would improve transparency.
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?
Single sentence with a parenthetical aside; no wasted words. Could be slightly restructured for clarity, but overall efficient.
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?
Explains the auditability outcome but lacks details on return values (output schema exists but not described), idempotency, or behavior on already-revoked agents.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'did' or 'agent_id' parameters, their roles, or how to use them. This is a major gap.
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?
Clearly states 'Revoke an identity' and explains the effect (disappears from discovery but record retained). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like register, describe, or resolve.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like register_agent or describe_agent. Does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where revocation is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: describe_agent for self-description, discover_agents for search, list_registrations for listing, register_agent for creation/update, resolve_agent for lookup, revoke_agent for soft deletion. No overlap.
All tools follow the verb_noun pattern: describe_agent, discover_agents, list_registrations, register_agent, resolve_agent, revoke_agent. Consistent and predictable.
6 tools is appropriate for an identity registry, covering all core operations without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool surface covers registration, resolution, discovery, listing, revocation, and self-description. The register_agent is idempotent, so updates are covered. No obvious gaps for the domain.