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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context: immediate revocation, all active tickets affected, subsequent requests receiving 401, the need to create a new ticket to resume, and that it mirrors DELETE /api/v1/media/uploads. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the effect and the REST equivalent. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

With no output schema and a simple zero-parameter operation, the description fully covers what the tool does, its immediate effect, and the follow-up action. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rules, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; there are no parameter semantics for the description to add.

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 ('revoke'), resource ('upload tickets'), and scope ('every active upload ticket for this account'). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling create_upload_ticket by saying 'create a new ticket to resume', so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 clear context for use: invalidating all active tickets immediately, and that a new ticket is needed to resume. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over other deletion tools like delete_media or remove_destination, and offers no exclusions.

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