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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does state one important trait: ownership is never marked verified. But it does not explain the semantics of withdrawing (whether withdrawn=true is a soft flag), concurrency via expectedVersion, idempotency behavior, or side effects on existing evidence.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states both the primary action and a key constraint, with no filler. It earns its place and leaves the reader with the essential meaning quickly.

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 tool has a nested revision object, three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the agent needs more context about idempotency and versioning to call it correctly. The description covers only the high-level action and one behavioral caveat, leaving material gaps around how to construct a valid revision.

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 adds almost no parameter-level meaning. The word 'withdraw' hints at the revision.withdrawn boolean, but id, expectedVersion, evidenceIds, and idempotencyKey are left unexplained, which is a significant gap for a nested-object input.

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 action set ('Revise or withdraw') and a specific resource ('your self-declared identity claim'), which clearly distinguishes this from related tools like submit_identity_claim or revise_attestation. The additional statement that ownership is never marked verified sharpens what the operation does.

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 is clear the tool is used when an existing self-declared identity claim must be changed or withdrawn, so the use case is implied. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites, or why to choose revise_identity_claim over revise_attestation or submit_identity_claim.

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