revoke_proof

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses irreversible action, global invalidation across status endpoint, public validator, revocation list, and Token Status List, and that only the proof is revoked. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: action, accepted identifiers, consequences, irreversibility, scope limitation, and access prerequisites. The core action is front-loaded, and the access note is clearly separated. No redundant or filler content.

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 description covers what the tool does, what inputs are accepted, what the effects are, and what prerequisites are needed. With no output schema, the only missing element is a description of the response format or error behavior beyond the access error, which is a minor gap for a revocation 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%, but the description adds meaningful detail about the 'id' parameter, explaining accepted formats (ph_ctl_* / ph_dlg_*) and linking to get_proof_status. The 'reason' parameter is thin, but the schema already says 'Reason for revocation', so no critical gap exists.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('proof') and precisely defines the inputs by public handle or verification ID. It clearly differentiates from siblings by stating it revokes only the proof, not the underlying asset, consent, or delegation, so agents can distinguish it from revoke_asset and revoke_delegation.

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?

Provides clear context: the same addresses get_proof_status takes, and access requires a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY plus a server restart. It explicitly says start_login does NOT open this tool, and clarifies the proof-only scope. However, it does not explicitly name revoke_asset or revoke_delegation as alternatives when the underlying object should be revoked, though the implication is strong.

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