evaluate_revocation_impact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions propagation of obligations, which hints at side effects, but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, what state changes occur, or if it has destructive consequences. The description is insufficient for an agent to assess risks.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and additional detail on what the tool does (propagation). Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential concept: evaluating revocation impact and propagation. However, it could be more complete by explaining what 'obligations' are, or what the return value looks like. Still adequate given simplicity.

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% (one parameter with a clear description). The tool description adds no further parameter details beyond the schema. According to guidelines, with high coverage, baseline is 3. The description does not improve or contradict the schema.

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 verb 'Evaluate' and the resource 'what happens when a data source revokes consent', including the specific action 'propagates obligations through derivation chains'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, many of which deal with consent, delegation, and evaluation but not specifically revocation impact.

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 usage for evaluating revocation consequences but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., 'use this when you need to understand downstream effects of consent revocation'. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.

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