ep_revoke_handshake

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It notes terminal nature and party restriction but does not disclose side effects on associated data, auth requirements beyond party status, or error states. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, immediately front-loaded with action and key constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 string params and no output schema, description covers main behavior and constraints. However, it lacks information about return values, success/failure indicators, or what happens when revoked (e.g., cascading effects). Completeness is adequate but not full.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters; description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states 'Revoke an active handshake', specifying verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ep_initiate_handshake (create) and ep_get_handshake (query).

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 who can revoke ('Only parties to the handshake') and that revocation is terminal. Provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives beyond implication from sibling tools.

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