revoke_intent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered structurally. The description adds useful detail beyond that: idempotency is keyed on client_request_id, and the constraint that only the caller's own active intents can be revoked.

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, no padding, and the core action plus scope is front-loaded before the idempotency note.

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 destructive but idempotent mutation with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers enough: what it does, on what scope, and idempotency semantics. Only a fuller statement of failure behavior (e.g. what happens to an already-revoked or expired intent) is missing, and no output schema exists to defer to.

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 all three parameters (token, intent_id, client_request_id) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb (revoke) and resource (intent) with scope qualifiers ('one of your own active') and the lookup key ('by id'). It is easy to distinguish from create_intent, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the words 'your own active intents', which tells the agent the target must be an existing intent it owns, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the siblings.

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