revoke_delegation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does mention a side effect (the other side is notified) and implies permission roles, but it lacks details on reversibility, error handling, or output behavior. Given it's a mutation tool, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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?

The description covers the core action and a side effect, which is adequate for a simple one-param tool. However, without annotations or an output schema, it misses information about errors, idempotency, or return values, leaving some gaps in 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?

The input schema already fully documents delegation_id with a description, and the description only restates 'by id' without adding deeper meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb (revoke) with a resource (delegation) and clarifies the operation by id. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like accept_delegation and delegate_service by indicating the action is a revocation/decline.

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?

It explains the two scenarios where the tool applies: an owner revoking or a delegate declining. This provides clear contextual guidance, but it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions such as listing delegations first or using accept_delegation for accepting.

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