revoke_execution_authority

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value with the tier gate (scout_plus) and the API/authority endpoints, but says nothing about what revocation actually invalidates — in-flight executions, session keys, delegated grants — which is the key behavioral question for a destructive operation.

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?

Two compact elements: a bracketed metadata tag and one declarative sentence. The metadata prefix is dense and front-loaded with gating information; it earns its place, though the dual endpoint listing is marginal for an agent that only needs the tier and action.

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 destructive, 7-parameter, no-output-schema mutation, the description omits the consequences of revocation, the relationship between grantId, sessionId, agentSessionId and ownerAddress, and how the caller knows it succeeded. It is enough to identify the tool but not enough to invoke it confidently.

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 57% with 7 parameters, four of which (sessionId, sessionToken, executionDomain, and required grantId's relationship to the session fields) are undocumented or ambiguously related. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it contributes nothing toward resolving which identifier combination selects the authority to revoke.

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?

"Revoke active bounded execution authority for an owner or agent session" is a specific verb (revoke) plus a precise resource (bounded execution authority), clearly a mutation counterpart to get_execution_authority in the sibling list. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the adjacent revoke_session_key, so the boundary between those two revocation tools is left for the agent to infer.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_execution_authority or revoke_session_key, and no prerequisites beyond the implicit tier gate. The only usage signal is the embedded capability/tier tag, which indicates eligibility but not call conditions.

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