noetic.revoke

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

With no annotations present, the description supplies meaningful behavioral constraints: ownership requirements, future-only effect, and immutability of receipts. It does not mention idempotency, error behavior, or whether revocation can be undone, but the stated invariants are valuable and non-obvious.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause adds operational meaning.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, authorization scope, and side-effect boundaries. Some invocation details (parameter formats, failure cases) are absent, but they are not critical for basic agent understanding.

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 0% and the description does not define 'sessionId' or 'capabilityRef'. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify the relationship between the two parameters or what format/scope is expected for capabilityRef.

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 uses a specific verb ('revoke'), a specific resource ('prior grant'), and clear qualifiers ('owner-governed', 'future authorization only', 'never rewrites receipts') that distinguish it from sibling tools like noetic.grant and noetic.receipt.

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 communicates when the tool is appropriate (revoking a prior grant), who may invoke it (owner-governed), and what it will not do (no retroactive effect, no receipt rewriting). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the contextual constraints provide clear usage boundaries.

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