chap.participant.revoke_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the permanent effect ('refused from then on') and the admin role requirement for revoking another participant's key. It could add that revocation is irreversible or that the action is audit-logged, but the provided behavior is solid and non-misleading.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose and example, behavioral consequence, and permission requirement. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no verbose 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?

The schema covers parameter semantics and error codes, while the description covers purpose, behavior, and authorization. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly; a minor gap is not explicitly contrasting revocation with key rotation, but this is not essential to correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description adds only one piece of contextual glue ('after a device is lost') and otherwise relies on the schema, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Revoke a signing key') and resource, with a concrete example ('after a device is lost'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling rotate_key by focusing on permanent invalidation of signatures.

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 gives clear context for when revocation is appropriate, such as a lost device, and explains the consequence that signatures will be refused. It does not explicitly compare against the sibling rotate_key, but the scenario-based guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand the primary use case.

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