revoke_token

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: revokes grant, kills delegation tree, delay of ~15s, return value token_revoked, and effect of optional released_sats. Lacks mention of error cases or prerequisites, but still strong.

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 sentences plus an option note. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. Efficient and clear.

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 no output schema, the description explains return value and timing. Covers the main actions and optional parameter. Missing error handling or state prerequisites, but sufficient for a focused tool with good annotations in parameters.

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% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds meaningful context like 'endpoint path' and 'API slug', and explains released_sats beyond the schema. Adds value over schema alone.

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?

Clearly states the action 'Revoke' and the resource 'grant behind a prepaid bundle'. Distinguishes from sibling mint_scoped_token by describing the effect on the delegation tree and children. Includes timing and response, making it specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit use case: 'cut off a sub-agent after handing out children'. Mentions optional parameter for returning budget. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear and contrasts with mint_scoped_token.

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