Revoke Endorsement

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation - it never says whether the revocation is permanent, what happens to the agent's standing, or what the caller must be authorized to do.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is an illustrative quote rather than new information, so it is efficient but not maximally information-dense.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool since the annotations carry the safety profile and the schema documents both inputs. It falls short on consequences and reversibility, which matter for a revocation action.

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) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Revoke a principal's endorsement of an agent.' It is clearly the inverse of endorse_agent and distinct from verify_endorsement, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 quoted scenario 'I no longer authorize this agent' implies when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as revoke_delegation, and no stated prerequisites or authority requirements.

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