ep_revoke_handshake

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral context: revocation is terminal and only parties can perform it. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the irreversible nature and access restrictions.

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?

Three sentences, each essential. The first sentence states the action, the second specifies who can use it, and the third describes the consequence. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with two required parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, constraints, and irreversible consequence. It could optionally mention the response format, but for a revocation tool the description is sufficiently complete.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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 'Revoke an active handshake', specifying the verb (revoke) and resource (handshake). It also adds context that only parties may revoke and that revocation is terminal, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ep_get_handshake or ep_verify_handshake.

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 conditions: 'Only parties to the handshake may revoke it' and 'Revocation is terminal — the handshake cannot be reopened.' This tells when to use (when termination is needed) and when not to (if not a party or if reopening is intended). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools but the context is clear.

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