revoke_disclosure

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the on-chain effect ('removes the grantee entry'), the permission model ('Attester-only, enforced in-circuit'), and the async pattern with a clear follow-up mechanism. It stops short of detailing failure modes or response statuses, but the provided information is substantial.

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 two concise sentences: the first explains the action and effect, the second explains the async behavior and next step. No redundancy, information is front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.

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 complex async on-chain mutation with 7 parameters and no output schema, this description covers the essential contract: what it does, who can call it, and how to track completion. It does not enumerate possible failure statuses, but that is reasonably delegated to get_job_status, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke and monitor correctly.

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 describes all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no param-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to compensate since the schema is complete.

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 states a specific action ('Revoke a previously granted disclosure on-chain'), identifies the resource (the grantee entry), and clearly differentiates from sibling grant_disclosure by using 'previously granted' and 'removes'. The verb is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear operational context: 'Attester-only' establishes who can invoke it, and the async instruction to poll get_job_status gives actionable next steps. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, though the verb 'revoke' makes the intended use case obvious.

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