Take a credential away

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description's mutation effect aligns. It adds the nuance of 'immediately' and the outcome of stopping working, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like invalidating sessions or reversibility. With annotations covering the basics, the extra context is modest.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the id source is given as a follow-up hint. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter revoke tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does and where to get the id. It doesn't describe edge cases like already-revoked credentials, but given the low complexity and supporting annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, and the schema already states 'the id from `credentials`'. The tool description repeats this same hint, adding no new information. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and there's no extra semantic detail provided beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Stops a credential working immediately') and clearly identifies the resource (credential). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_credential and rotate_resource by focusing on revocation. The verb 'Stops' is precise and the resource is unambiguous.

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?

It implies when to use (when you need to stop a credential) and provides the source of the id via `credentials`. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple revoke action the context is clear enough. There is no misleading guidance.

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