revoke_delegation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses idempotence, mirroring into the proof registry/CRL/status list, preservation of domain control proof and sibling delegations, different repeat behavior compared to proofs, and derived result fields. This is rich, accurate behavioral disclosure with no annotation contradiction.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the three paragraphs carry substantive information about effects, idempotency, result fields, and access. It is dense but not bloated; the access paragraph could be tightened slightly, but every sentence contributes useful guidance.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description supplies the critical invocation context: authentication prerequisite, propagation of the revocation, idempotency semantics, and the derived effective_status/is_valid fields. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly without guessing at side effects or access requirements.

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 covers both parameters fully (100% description coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that id targets one delegation and highlights the ph_dlg_ handle path, but it does not add significant field-level semantics 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 opening phrase 'Revoke ONE delegation' names a specific verb and resource, explicitly limits scope, and distinguishes this from proof revocation ('unlike a PROOF'). The description also ties into the delegation/proof domain clearly, so an agent can tell it apart from revoke_proof and other revoke_* siblings.

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 explicit access context: 'needs a Proof account,' 'Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server,' and 'start_login does NOT open this tool.' It also relates the tool to revoke_proof via the ph_dlg_ handle. It does not, however, state a crisp condition for choosing this tool over revoke_proof in all cases, so it stops short of full alternative-selection guidance.

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