attest-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a state-changing operation (not read-only), has cascading effects, returns a confirmation object, and provides guidance on follow-up actions. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but covers the essential mutation behavior adequately.

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?

Perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first explains the action and cascade, second provides usage context, third describes return behavior and follow-up guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well to explain the mutation behavior, cascading effects, return type, and follow-up actions. It could mention what 'confirmation object' contains or error scenarios, but covers the essential context for a destructive operation with 2 parameters.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (jti and revoked_by). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since schema coverage is complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 one credential'), the scope ('cascade that revocation through all of its descendants in the same task tree'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning alternatives like check_revocation and list_tasks. It goes beyond just restating the name to explain the cascading behavior.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when a workflow should be stopped or contained') and when not to use it ('not a dry run'), plus provides clear alternatives for follow-up actions ('later checks should use check_revocation or list_tasks rather than calling revoke_credential again'). This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation.

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