Revoke SAP Attestation

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by stating that metadata should be kept stable and auditable, implying the revoke action does not destroy associated metadata. No contradiction with annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first directly states the purpose, and the second provides contextual guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity (single input parameter, output schema exists), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what to consider. No gaps remaining.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the only parameter 'agentWallet'. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 attestation for an agent wallet.' The verb 'revoke' and resource 'attestation' are specific. Among siblings like sap_create_attestation and sap_revoke_feedback, this tool's purpose is distinct 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?

The description provides a usage condition ('Use after verifying the target agent PDA or wallet') and a guideline ('keep hashes/attestation metadata stable and auditable'). However, it does not explicitly describe when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, which would be helpful for an agent to decide.

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