Revoke engagement

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

The description adds 'Immediately' and 'prevent further target operations' beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), giving useful behavioral context about the effect and timing. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the action and a key consequence.

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 mutation tool with one required parameter, the description is minimal. It does not explain how to obtain or format engagement_id, mention prerequisites, reversibility, or error conditions. The output schema exists, so return details are not required, but other operational context is missing.

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 zero description coverage for engagement_id, and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. With 0% coverage, the description must compensate but fails to provide any meaning for the parameter.

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 and resource: 'Immediately revoke an engagement and prevent further target operations.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_dry_run_engagement, which creates rather than revokes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description states what the tool does but not the context in which it should be invoked.

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