revoke_credential

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the on-chain attestation remains but the registry status changes and the credential is delisted, and that it is reversible via re-verification. This provides a clear picture of side effects and reversibility, though it doesn't mention potential error conditions or permission requirements.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding necessary behavioral details. Each sentence contributes unique information (action, proof mechanism, on-chain effect, reversibility) without redundancy or fluff.

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 relatively simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what is required, what the effect is on the registry, and that it is reversible. It does not mention error scenarios or prerequisites like having an active credential, but these are implicitly understood. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it clarifies that the recall_code is 'planted on your last run' and calls it 'proof of control', which is already in the schema. It doesn't introduce new semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action (revoke/retire) and the resource (the agent's own Verigent credential). It also explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing 'THIS agent's own' and mentioning the exit right, making it unmistakably different from verification or reporting 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 implies the primary use case (voluntarily exiting) and gives a prerequisite (possession of the recall_code). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of 'own credential' and the sibling list (e.g., verify_agent, start_verification) makes the intended usage clear enough for an agent.

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