Release artifact manifest

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuine nuance: it discloses that revocation is partial ('Already read text cannot be removed from a worker's memory') and that immutable artifacts are retained. This is exactly the kind of beyond-annotation context that helps an agent predict side effects.

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 action and its idempotent nature are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the behavioral caveat and retry guidance following. It's efficiently sized with little waste, though the trailing sentence is slightly loosely connected to the action.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. The description completes the picture with the retention/irreversibility nuance and retry intent; only error conditions (e.g., SHA mismatch) are left unaddressed, which keeps it from a 5.

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 both manifest_id and manifest_sha256 are already documented as the pinned identifier and exact SHA256. The description adds no further syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Revoke a manifest idempotently,' which an agent can distinguish from siblings like artifact_manifest_create, _get, and _verify. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools it should be chosen over.

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?

'Discard pending output under a revoked manifest and prepare a new authorized attempt' implies the usage context (cleaning up a failed/stale manifest before retrying). However, it gives no explicit when-not conditions or comparison against alternatives such as artifact_manifest_verify or local_context_revoke, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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