acp_revoke_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('record it') and cryptographic signing ('sign'), but says nothing about required keys or permissions, whether revocation is reversible, what happens to existing records, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing information noted in other dimensions.

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 three-required-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent would not know what is being revoked, what the enum targets mean, or what signing entails.

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 0% across three required parameters. The description does not explain 'reason', 'targetId', or the critical enum distinction between 'invite' and 'capability' in 'targetType', so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action (sign a RevocationNotice and record it in this server registry), which is more informative than the tool name alone. However it never clarifies that revocation is for invites or capabilities, so the enum-selected target is a surprise relative to the 'revoke_token' name. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like acp_create_invite or acp_verify_audit_bundle.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g. acp_create_invite or acp_verify_audit_bundle). No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of an alternative are provided.

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