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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that destruction is immediate and overrides TTL, that it works whether or not content was fetched, that authorization requires the writer's revoke_key, and that an already-gone item returns 'already_gone' rather than failing. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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, each doing distinct work: what it does, the authority constraint, when to reach for it, and the idempotent-outcome note. The destructive action and its immediacy are front-loaded.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything material: scope, timing, authorization, and the result of a no-op revoke. Nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by stressing that revoke_key is the writer's key and that the short code cannot revoke. The schema's own parameter description already says this, so the description is reinforcing rather than adding new information.

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 (destroy) and resource (content stored by handoff_put), and explicitly scopes it as immediate and independent of TTL or fetch status. This distinguishes it cleanly from handoff_get and handoff_put without opening their 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('the moment someone says they sent the wrong thing, or changed their mind') and an explicit authority rule (only the writer can revoke, not the fetcher). It also clarifies the edge case where revoking a gone item is not an error.

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