asc_revoke_certificate

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It states that profiles using the certificate become invalid and that App Store apps are unaffected, which is important behavioral context. It does not mention irrevocability or required permissions, but the main consequences of revocation are covered.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, followed by the key use-case and side effects, so every part 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 one-parameter revocation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, trigger, and consequences adequately. The main missing pieces are an explicit pointer to asc_list for retrieving certificate_id and clarification about whether revocation can be undone.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter, certificate_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no information about it. The name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not say where to obtain the ID or whether any format is expected, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke a signing certificate.' The parenthetical 'frees a slot when Apple's certificate limit is hit' adds distinguishing context, and it is clearly different from related siblings like asc_list or signing_inspect, which list or inspect rather than revoke.

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 gives a concrete trigger for when to use the tool: when Apple's certificate limit is hit and a slot needs to be freed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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