revoke_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation effect ('marked as revoked'), the downstream consequence ('associated proofs will no longer validate'), and an access prerequisite. It does not mention reversibility or error behavior for already-revoked or non-verified assets, but it provides meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action and effect appear in the first sentence, followed by a focused access note. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant wording.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, effect, and access requirements well. It could additionally describe expected responses or error conditions, but the essential information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 schema already documents the only parameter as 'Asset ID' with 100% coverage, so the description adds little new parameter meaning. Saying 'by ID' reinforces which identifier is needed, but the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke a verified asset by ID.' It then states the concrete outcome: the asset is marked revoked and associated proofs no longer validate. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like revoke_proof and list_assets.

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 gives clear operational context: it requires a Proof account, instructs setting PROOF_API_KEY and restarting the server, and explicitly says start_login does NOT open this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives such as revoke_proof for when a proof, not an asset, should be revoked.

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