Revoke the durable MCP server approval snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds a real operational prerequisite: WARDEN_ALLOW_PIN_CHANGES=1 must be set by the operator before process startup. It also reassures that the tool 'never starts the target server.' The approval-oriented sentence about required hashes is somewhat tangential to revoke and stops short of describing exactly what the revocation discards, keeping this at a 4.

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 front-loaded with use/do-not-use routing, which is efficient. However, the closing sentence about approval requirements (exact reviewed tool and identity hashes) describes approve_mcp_server rather than this two-parameter revoke tool, adding some noise and potential confusion.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers prerequisites, routing, and the non-launch safety property. The only soft spot is that the approval hash discussion does not map onto revoke's actual parameters, leaving minor ambiguity about what inputs revocation truly validates.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that previous_pin_revision is null when unpinned, but frames it in terms of approval rather than this tool, so the added value is limited.

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 verb and resource ('revoke a local server approval') and explicitly separates this tool from siblings by naming status_mcp_server for inspection and vet_mcp_server for scanning. An agent can identify the operation and its scope without opening the schema.

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?

It provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, names the exact alternative for the excluded case (vet_mcp_server for ordinary scanning), and points to status_mcp_server for comparing hashes before revoking. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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