identity__revoke_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially fulfills the burden by disclosing that the identity becomes undiscoverable and that the record is retained. However, it lacks details on authorization requirements, reversibility, or side effects beyond what is stated, which is insufficient 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, consisting of a single sentence plus a domain prefix. It front-loads the action and key details without redundancy. However, it could be slightly better structured with separate sentences for context and behavior.

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 two optional parameters, no output schema, and the revocation nature, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after revocation, the expected response, or how the parameters relate, leaving significant gaps for correct 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (did, agent_id), and the description does not mention either parameter. The agent receives no guidance on how to use these parameters, their roles, or which is required, making invocation guesswork.

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 action ('Revoke an identity') and the specific effect: it disappears from discovery (terminal) but the record is retained for auditability. This distinguishes it from other identity tools like register or describe, making the purpose 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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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