revoke_authorization

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a status constraint and an access requirement beyond what the schema shows. However, it does not mention irreversibility, downstream effects on the authorization, or the result/error shape, so it only partially covers the mutation's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the action and resource, and the ACCESS note is compact and relevant. The only minor flaw is that 'Only authorizations with status active or pending...' restates the constraint already present in the first sentence.

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 tool is simple with two scalar parameters and no output schema, and the description covers prerequisites and valid statuses. Still, without annotations or an output schema, an agent is left without information about side effects, return behavior, or error cases, so completeness is adequate but not strong.

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 both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the target must be an active or pending authorization, but it does not explain the reason field beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence names the specific action and resource: 'Revoke an active or pending authorization.' The status restriction clarifies the operation and distinguishes it from generic revoke tools. This is a clear verb-plus-resource statement that stands apart from the sibling revoke_* tools.

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 explicitly states the only valid statuses ('active' or 'pending') and gives operational prerequisites: Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, and a server restart. It also warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, preventing an obvious wrong authentication path. It does not name alternative revoke tools such as revoke_auth_session, so it falls just short of a 5.

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