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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('revoke') which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, if the change is reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a security-sensitive mutation tool, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and target, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 permission revocation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after revocation, whether there are side effects, what format the scope parameter expects, or security implications. Given the complexity of permission management and lack of structured behavioral hints, more context is needed for safe 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format examples, scope enumeration, or relationships between parameters). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 action ('revoke') and target ('permission scope from an agent'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vorim_grant_permission' (opposite action) and 'vorim_list_permissions' (read-only), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description avoids tautology by specifying what gets revoked rather than just restating the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vorim_revoke_agent' (which revokes the entire agent) or 'vorim_grant_permission' (for granting permissions). It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the permission must exist first) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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