SINT Protocol

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 mentions the tool is for admins and involves revocation, but doesn't explain what revocation entails (e.g., immediate deactivation, irreversible action, system impact), nor does it cover error conditions, permissions required beyond 'admin', or response format.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple revocation tool, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the admin constraint into its own clause.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after revocation, what the return value might be, error scenarios, or system implications. The '(admin)' hint is helpful but doesn't provide complete operational context.

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 fully documents both parameters (tokenId and reason). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since the schema is complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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') and the resource ('active capability token by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'revoke_delegation_tree' or 'issue_token', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 like 'revoke_delegation_tree' or 'deny', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints beyond the '(admin)' hint. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context provided.

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