ep_revoke_commit

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: 'SIDE EFFECT: terminally cancels the commit — it can never be consumed after this, and the change is irreversible.' It also mentions 'Requires auth.' No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and side effect. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simplicity, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, side effects, auth requirement, and return value ('Returns the revoked status'). No output schema exists, but the description suffices.

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 (commit_id, reason). The description does not add extra meaning beyond specifying 'Commit ID to revoke' and 'Reason for revocation' as already present in the schema. 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Revoke an active pre-action commit before it is fulfilled or expires.' This specifies the verb (revoke), resource (commit), and condition (active, pre-action). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ep_issue_commit or ep_verify_commit by focusing solely on revocation.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'use when a pending action should be called off.' It also implies when not to use by noting the irreversible side effect. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions to avoid, though no direct alternative exists in the sibling list.

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