Recall (revoke) an agent

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the core effect (denying future permission checks) and the audit trait, but it does not address reversibility or side effects (e.g., ongoing sessions). This is a minor gap for a destructive action.

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 concise at three sentences, with the action and effect first, followed by usage guidance, then a notable behavioral trait. No redundant or filler content.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and effect but omits parameter details and output information. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a fully informed invocation.

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 only 50% (agent_id lacks a description), and the tool description adds no detail about either parameter. The description does not help an agent understand what values to provide for agent_id or reason beyond what the schema already offers.

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 action ('Revoke an agent') and its effect ('so all future permission checks deny it'). It also provides usage context ('when an agent misbehaves or is decommissioned'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like register_agent or check_permission.

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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool: 'Use when an agent misbehaves or is decommissioned.' This gives clear guidance, and since siblings cover other operations (e.g., register_agent, check_permission), the intended use case is well-differentiated.

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