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

Annotations already convey the destructive and idempotent nature of the operation, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by stating that CONNECT_API_KEY and ETH on Base are required, which implies an on-chain, gas-bearing action. It also explains that context can limit which attestations are revoked.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded, the optional context behavior is stated, and the prerequisites are included. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 destructive trust-revocation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: what is revoked, how context scopes the action, and the required credentials/gas token. It does not describe the response format, but the annotations and schema are sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 both parameters and the nested target object. The description only restates the context-limiting behavior already present in the schema, so it adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the structured definitions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke active trust attestations from the API key owner to a target.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling trust tools like connect_trust_create, connect_trust_check, and connect_trust_graph, and the optional context clause adds scope precision.

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 operation and prerequisite are clear, and the schema explains that omitting context revokes all contexts. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it; it relies on inferred semantics from the sibling names.

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