revoke_consent

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

Annotations already specify destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a concrete behavioral detail—'forgets the local token'—and highlights that the action occurs 'at a bank.' This provides context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise and well-organized with a clear one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. The inclusion of 'ctx' is extraneous and the Returns line somewhat duplicates what an output schema would convey, but overall the text is efficient and scannable.

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 that this is a destructive operation, the description is adequate but not thorough. It covers the basic action and a key side effect, but omits prerequisites (e.g., must the consent exist), error handling behavior, or whether it revokes all consent types. The idempotentHint annotation helps, but more context 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 description coverage is 0%, so the Args section in the description is essential. It explains subject_id as 'User's CPF or internal ID' and bank as 'Identifier of the participating bank,' which is helpful. However, it also lists 'ctx' as an argument not present in the input schema, causing ambiguity, and the enum values for bank are not described.

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 tool 'Revokes a user's consent at a bank and forgets the local token.' This uses a specific verb ('revokes'), a resource ('consent'), and adds a distinctive side effect (forgetting the token), which separates it from sibling consent tools like start_consent, complete_consent, and check_consent_status.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the existence of a consent to revoke, nor does it contrast with related tools like check_consent_status or start_payment_consent. Usage is only implied by the name and action.

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