ps_delegate_revoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Revoke' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, what happens to the delegated resources, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('revoke'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for the agent to operate safely and effectively.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters are undocumented. The description doesn't add any meaning to the parameters (delegationId, parentAgentId, reason), such as explaining what a delegationId is, how to obtain it, or what constitutes a valid reason. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action ('revoke') and the target ('an active delegation'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ps_delegate' (which likely creates delegations) or 'ps_delegate_list' (which likely lists them), leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active delegation to revoke), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'ps_delegate' or 'ps_delegate_list', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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