push_client_revocation_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation ('push') and the target (cluster nodes), but does not describe side effects, error conditions, permission requirements, or idempotency.

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 concise sentence covering the core action. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points for impact).

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 is a mutation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It conveys the main purpose but omits details like whether it overwrites existing policy or requires prior registration of nodes.

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% with basic descriptions for both parameters (realm, client_uuid). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'push' and identifies the resource 'revocation policy' and target 'all registered cluster nodes for the client'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'push_realm_revocation_policy' by specifying client-level policy.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., push_realm_revocation_policy) or when not to use it. It lacks any context about prerequisites or conditions.

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