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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the concrete consequences: pending tool calls are rejected and the kernel enters a stopped state. It also explains the recovery requirement, which is the operationally important behavioral detail. It does not address authorization requirements or whether the revoke itself is reversible.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its emergency framing, then consequences, then recovery. There is no filler and every sentence carries distinct 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers action, effect on in-flight work, resulting state, and recovery. Authorization and error behavior are unstated, but annotations and schema cover most remaining ground.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format or constraint detail about scopeId, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Revoke an execution scope') and sharpens it with the parenthetical 'emergency stop', making the intent unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pcc_create_scope or pcc_scope_audit without opening any 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?

It establishes the usage context as an emergency stop and points to the recovery path ('a new scope must be created to resume'), effectively routing the agent to pcc_create_scope. It stops short of an explicit when-not condition (e.g., prefer pause for non-emergency stops).

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