Vorim AI — Agent Identity & Trust

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: the action is permanent and irreversible, deactivates the agent's identity, and sets its trust score to 0. This covers destructive impact and outcomes, though it lacks details on permissions or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the core action and consequences in two concise sentences. Each sentence adds critical information (irreversibility and specific effects), with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (destructive action with permanent effects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering key behavioral aspects. It explains the irreversible nature and outcomes, though it could benefit from mentioning permissions or error scenarios for full completeness.

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%, with the parameter 'agent_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('permanently revoke') and resource ('an agent'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'vorim_update_agent' or 'vorim_get_agent'. It explicitly mentions irreversible consequences, which adds specificity beyond the basic verb.

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 implies usage context by stating the action is permanent and cannot be undone, suggesting caution. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vorim_update_agent' or provide prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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