bsp_revoke_all_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly warns that all tokens are revoked and that no institution will be able to access data afterward, disclosing the destructive and seemingly irreversible nature of the action. It doesn't mention reversibility or prerequisites, but the core behavioral impact is transparent.

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?

The description is two sentences with the 'Emergency' tag front-loaded, immediately signaling urgency. It avoids redundancy and focuses on the essential effect.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the operation's effect. It could benefit from mentioning reversibility or restrictions, but the core information needed to call the tool correctly 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?

The schema already fully describes the beoId parameter with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add parameter information. It provides no additional semantics beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool revokes all active ConsentTokens for a BEO, using the verb 'revokes' and specifying the resource. It also emphasizes the emergency nature and the outcome (no institution can access data), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like destroy or lock.

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?

The description indicates this is an emergency revocation, implying it should be used when immediate and complete revocation is needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the emergency context and the statement that no institution will have access after this provide clear guidance on when it's appropriate.

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