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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by naming the concrete consequences (identity assertion stops working, access tokens revoked) and adding a human-confirmation requirement. It does not state whether the revocation is irreversible or whether the agent can re-register, which would have made it complete.

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, no filler: the effect is front-loaded and the safety instruction is placed last where it is most actionable. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition supplies effect, prerequisite, and id provenance. Only the irreversibility/return-behavior question remains open, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 coverage is 100% and the single id property is already documented as "Registration id from list_agent_access." The description repeats the same provenance hint but adds no format, constraint, or lookup detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("End an agent registration") and immediately ties the target to the sibling that produces it (list_agent_access). An agent can distinguish this from list_agent_access and from remove_member without opening either schema.

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?

Provides a clear precondition ("Confirm with the owner first") and identifies list_agent_access as the source of the required identifier. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative tool for a softer revocation, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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