revoke_authorization

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation hazard is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the status eligibility constraint and the PROOF_API_KEY account requirement (and the warning that start_login does not satisfy it). It omits what happens post-revocation (reversibility, return shape), keeping it from a 5.

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 core action and its eligibility constraint are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the access prerequisite kept separate. Slightly verbose in the ACCESS block, but every element earns its place by preventing a failure mode.

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 mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers eligibility, access prerequisites, and the sibling trap (start_login). Return behavior is not described, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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 100%, so both 'id' and 'reason' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Revoke an active or pending authorization') and scopes it by eligible statuses. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling revoke_* tools (revoke_proof, revoke_auth_session, revoke_api_key, revoke_delegation), so a 4 rather than 5.

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 gives a clear precondition ('Only authorizations with status "active" or "pending" can be revoked') and access requirements, which is implied usage guidance. However, it never says when to reach for this versus alternatives like revoke_proof or revoke_auth_session, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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