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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation revokes a subtree and records the revocation to the ledger, which are meaningful side effects. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, cascade behavior details, or possible failure modes.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each clause contributes useful information: the action, the scope, and the ledger side effect.

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?

The core outcome and ledger side effect are stated, but with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks information about return values, error behavior, and required permissions. This is adequate for a basic call but leaves several important contextual gaps for a mutating 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?

The description does not elaborate on the required parameters, and the input schema only lists their names. With schema description coverage reported at 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the field names 'revoked_by_principal_id' and 'reason' are reasonably self-explanatory but no extra meaning is added.

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?

Uses the specific verb 'Revokes' with the resource 'mandate subtree', making the action and scope clear. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like broker.revoke-grant or mandate.delegate. The additional ledger-recording clause further defines what the tool does beyond just the action.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as broker.revoke-grant or other mandate operations. The description implies the use case but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit selection criteria.

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