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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful traits: prior versions are preserved, withdrawals are supported, and sponsorship disclosure is retained or revised. However, it does not disclose idempotency behavior, expectedVersion conflict semantics, or what happens to existing attestation state, which are material for a revision tool.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then adds the two most useful behavioral facts: version preservation and sponsorship disclosure. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

This is a 3-parameter tool with a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to do heavy lifting. It leaves out essential calling context: what idempotencyKey is for, how expectedVersion is used to prevent conflicts, and what is expected in the nested revision object.

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 compensate. 'Sponsorship disclosure' hints at sponsored/financialRelationship, and 'preserving prior versions' hints at expectedVersion, but id, idempotencyKey, evidenceIds, verdict, and reason are left entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Revise or withdraw') and a specific resource ('your attestation'), and adds two differentiating behaviors: version preservation and sponsorship disclosure. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like create_attestation and revise_identity_claim without opening the 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?

The phrase 'Revise or withdraw your attestation' gives clear context: this tool is for modifying or retracting an existing attestation, not creating one. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as create_attestation or state exclusion conditions, but the 'your' and 'preserving prior versions' wording sufficiently frames when it applies.

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