revoke_trust

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions 'invalidates the chain,' hinting at a destructive action, but omits details like required permissions, reversibility, rate limits, or side effects. The disclosure is minimal.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary wording, but it is too short to be informative. While concise, it sacrifices essential details, making it minimally acceptable.

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?

Given 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain key concepts (trust anchor, attestation, chain), the revocation process, or how parameters relate to each other, leaving the agent ill-equipped to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (target_id, reason, revoked_by, api_key). The parameter names alone are unclear (e.g., 'target_id' could refer to an anchor or attestation), so the agent gets no assistance in filling them correctly.

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 states 'Revoke a trust anchor or attestation' and indicates the effect 'invalidates the chain.' The verb and resource are clear, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_attestation or create_trust_anchor, which may also involve trust operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_trust_score, verify_chain). There are no preconditions, warnings, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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