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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavior, and it does flag the operation as a genuine destructive local deletion listing the four artifact classes destroyed. It omits reversibility, permission/authentication requirements, and scope of impact beyond the local environment, so meaningful gaps remain.

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 that earns its place by stating the destructive scope immediately. 'EDNA ID (production)' is slightly cryptic but conveys environment context efficiently with zero filler.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the key fact an agent needs — that this irreversibly destroys key, vault, model, and log locally — is stated up front. Missing permission and confirmation details keep it short of complete, but the core content is present.

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?

Only one optional parameter exists and its schema description coverage is 100%, including validation pattern and fallback behavior via the X-EDNA-Session header. The description adds nothing about the session parameter, which is acceptable given the schema already documents it fully.

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 concrete operation (revoke) and enumerates exactly what is destroyed: key, vault, model, and log. This is far more specific than the bare name, though it never contrasts itself with sibling tools such as edna_identity_create or edna.id.status.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'real LOCAL deletion' hints at caution but never states prerequisites, confirmation steps, or conditions under which revocation should be avoided.

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