airc_revoke

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the action is 'permanent' and 'cannot be undone', which are critical behavioral traits for a destructive operation. It does not detail post-revocation effects or permissions, but the core irreversibility is well communicated.

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, consisting of two short sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and critical warning efficiently.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema, no output schema, and absence of annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage condition, and the key behavioral trait (irreversibility). It is complete for this operation.

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 enumerated reasons, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it only provides the same warning about permanence. No extra parameter details are given.

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 explicitly states the verb 'revoke' and the resource 'identity' with version 'AIRC v0.2', making the action unambiguous. It also includes a clear warning about permanence. This distinguishes it within the AIRC toolset (e.g., from airc_register or airc_rotate_key).

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 advises 'Use only for compromised accounts', which provides a clear condition for appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools for non-compromise scenarios.

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