vault_revoke_lease

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral consequence beyond the name: the in-memory buffer is immediately zeroized, signalling an irreversible destructive effect. It omits auth requirements, idempotency, and what happens if the lease is already expired or unknown.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the consequence. No filler, no redundancy.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what happens but leaves error behavior, permissions, and post-revocation state unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps given the destructive nature of the operation.

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% for the single required leaseId, so the description must compensate. It partially does by revealing the expected identifier format (lease_<ulid>), but adds no detail on where that handle comes from or what form it takes beyond the prefix.

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 (revoke), a specific resource type (an active lease_<ulid> handle), and the immediate effect (zeroize in-memory buffer). It is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like vault_get_secret or vault_lease_secret, though it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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 word "Explicitly" faintly hints that leases may otherwise be revoked implicitly (e.g. on expiry), but there is no statement of when to call this versus letting a lease lapse, no preconditions, and no named alternative. The agent must infer the entire usage context.

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