revoke_endorsement

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral effects. It explains the semantic intent ('I no longer authorize this agent') but does not disclose whether the action is reversible, whether permissions are required, or what consequences occur for existing verifications. Since this is a mutation/revocation tool, that is a notable gap.

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 two short sentences and is fully front-loaded with the action and resource. The quote adds efficient semantic color without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple revoke-by-ID operation the description gives the core semantics, but it omits behavioral details like reversibility, side effects, and whether an impact check is recommended before use. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is acceptable but not complete.

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%, and both parameters (endorsement_id, reason) have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'revoke' and clearly names the resource: 'a principal's endorsement of an agent.' The clarifying quote 'I no longer authorize this agent' reinforces the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like endorse_agent and verify_endorsement.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives; it does not mention evaluate_revocation_impact or revoke_delegation, nor any prerequisite like checking impact before revoking. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and basic action.

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