revoke_delegation

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

Annotations only say this mutates and is destructive; the description adds substantial context beyond them: idempotent repeat-revoke behavior with the same response body, the contrast with a PROOF that returns already_revoked, propagation into the proof registry so CRL/status list/public lookup reflect it, and that the result carries a derived effective_status/is_valid. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot supply.

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 scope-limiting first sentence is front-loaded, followed by the idempotency contrast and the access requirement. It is dense but each sentence carries distinct information; slight redundancy in restating handle forms keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by telling the agent what the response contains (derived effective_status/is_valid beside stored status). Combined with the access requirement and the idempotency guarantee, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both id (24-hex or ph_dlg_ handle) and the reason enum are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the ph_dlg_ handle form but adds no syntax or format beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Revoke ONE delegation') and immediately bounds the scope by noting that the domain control proof and sibling delegations stay valid. This distinguishes it from revoke_proof, which the description names explicitly, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explains the relationship to revoke_proof with the ph_dlg_ handle and clarifies that both paths are idempotent, which is real routing guidance. It also states the account prerequisite. What it lacks is an explicit 'use this when X, not Y' decision rule for the primary case, but the context is otherwise clear.

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