revoke-attestation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that revocation is a destructive operation, whether confirmation is required, or any permission or network constraints beyond 'Rootstock network'. The irreversible nature and need for wallet signing are omitted.

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 that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids extraneous detail. Every word is functional, earning its place despite the lack of elaboration.

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?

The tool is a mutation with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain return values, success/failure indicators, prerequisites (e.g., wallet setup), or how to interpret results. It is under-specified for effective use by an AI agent.

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%, so the parameters are documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the role of wallet parameters or the format of the UID in context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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), resource (attestation), identifier (UID), and network (Rootstock). It distinguishes from sibling tools like issue-attestation and verify-attestation by specifying revocation. However, it does not elaborate on what revocation entails (e.g., permanent invalidation).

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, such as when an attestation should be revoked or if there are prerequisites. The description does not mention that revocation is irreversible or that the attestation must have been previously issued.

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