SINT Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cascade revocation behavior ('All descendant tokens are cascade-revoked'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes all necessary details (verb, resource, scope, cascade effect). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.

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's complexity (mutation with cascade effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and cascade behavior but lacks details on permissions, response format, or error conditions, which are important for safe invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (rootTokenId and reason). The description adds context by explaining that rootTokenId identifies the 'subtree to revoke' and implies cascade effects, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('revoke') and resource ('entire delegation subtree'), including the scope ('rooted at the given tokenId') and cascade effect ('All descendant tokens are cascade-revoked'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sint__revoke_token by specifying subtree vs. single token revocation.

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 usage for revoking a delegation subtree with cascade effects, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sint__revoke_token or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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