revoke_agent_credential

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the deletion is server-side, that the local private-key file is preserved, that no further token can be minted, and that auth_mode 'agent' is cleared (§96), making that lane unusable. These are precisely the side effects an agent needs before calling a destructive 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and tightly scoped, with side effects following in order of importance. The section markers (§86/§96) are cryptic and add slight noise, but the two sentences earn their 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?

For a zero-parameter mutation with no annotations, it fully explains the destructive consequence, the state left behind, and what is preserved. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, and nothing essential is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema already covers everything and there is nothing for the description to add on parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Revoke your enrolled agent key server-side') and clarifies the exact effect: deleting the per-agent source so no token can be minted. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling enroll_agent_credential and agent_credential_status.

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 clear usage context: use it to kill minting until re-enrollment, and notes re-enroll is the path back. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools to use instead (e.g., agent_credential_status) or state preconditions, but the when-to-use is unambiguous.

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