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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds real value on top: immediate revocation behavior, explicit non-destruction of monitored agents, and the confirm guardrail defaulting to a no-op.

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 tight sentences: action first, scope boundary second, guardrail third. Each sentence carries distinct information and is front-loaded, with no waste.

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 destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema already defined, the description supplies the remaining essentials: what is revoked, what is not affected, and the confirmation requirement.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains confirm thoroughly (required true, omitted performs no action) but leaves subscription_id and subscription_key undecorated beyond their self-evident names, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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') and resource ('pull subscription and its key') and clarifies the scope boundary ('Does not delete monitored agents'), which helps separate it from delete_agent_health. It doesn't name an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of top marks.

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 invocation guidance via the confirm=true requirement and notes that omission is a no-op, which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives, and usage of the subscription flow is only implied.

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