aga_revoke_artifact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the transition options (TERMINATED or SAFE_STATE) but doesn't explain what these states mean, whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects. For a revocation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds technical context (transition options, NCCoE reference). Every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and technical constraints but lacks critical context about behavioral outcomes, error conditions, and system impact. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what 'sealed_hash' represents, what format 'reason' should take, or the implications of the transition options. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('revoke'), target resource ('active policy artifact'), and context ('mid-session'), distinguishing it from siblings like aga_create_artifact (creation) or aga_verify_artifact (verification). It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement.

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 context ('mid-session') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aga_quarantine_status or aga_rotate_keys. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative guidance are provided, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.

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