push_realm_revocation_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action but does not disclose behavioral traits such as safety (destructive? idempotent?), prerequisites (e.g., 'admin URL' existence), or error conditions. For a write operation, more context is needed.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately informative.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description explains the what but lacks detail on behavior, return values, and potential failure modes. With no output schema, the description should clarify the outcome or side effects. It is partially complete.

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 coverage is 100% (only one parameter 'realm' described as 'Realm name'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no extra value is provided.

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 ('Push'), the resource ('realm's revocation policy'), and the target ('any client that has an admin URL'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'push_client_revocation_policy' by specifying realm-wide distribution.

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 implies use for pushing realm-level revocation policy to all clients with admin URLs. The sibling tool name 'push_client_revocation_policy' provides contrast, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is given. The guidance is implicit from the context.

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