revoke_artifact

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

Without annotations, the description partially carries the burden. It discloses the termination effect on next measurement, but does not detail permissions, side effects on other artifacts, or confirmation mechanics. It adds value but leaves 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Every word contributes to understanding purpose and key behavior. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description is minimal but covers the primary action and a notable behavioral effect. However, given no output schema and potential complexity around revocation, more detail (e.g., what happens to the session, how to confirm success) would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('sealed_hash', 'reason'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 specifies the action 'Revoke' on the resource 'active policy artifact', adds context 'mid-session', and notes a specific effect 'Portal terminates on next measurement'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'attest_subject' or 'delegate_to_subagent'.

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 context ('mid-session') but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use, or which sibling to choose instead). It lacks exclusion criteria or comparative hints.

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