Revoke a credential (writes to the ledger)

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 this writes to the ledger, that it spends XRP, that it is gated behind --allow-writes, and that the signing seed is read from the OS keychain so it never enters the agent's context. That is exactly the cost, permission, and secret-handling information an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and its cost, then identity, then access constraints. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers cost, signing authority, and the write gate. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'network' parameter and any note on irreversibility or failure behavior for a ledger write.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies the identity of a credential as (issuer, subject, credential_type) and implicitly tells the agent not to supply a seed, but 'network' is never explained and 'issuer' is described as part of the identity triple even though it is not an input parameter, which could confuse the caller.

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 and resource: 'Submit a CredentialDelete transaction, withdrawing one credential so it no longer counts as held.' The effect is unambiguous and clearly about credentials rather than DIDs, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling revoke_did tool.

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 real preconditions: the server must have been started with --allow-writes, and either the issuer or the subject may sign the delete. It does not, however, say when to choose this over revoke_did or other siblings, nor what to do if the credential is already absent.

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