spawn_revoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the side effect of removing SPAWN_AGENT_KEY from project .env and adds 'after success', implying transactional behavior. It does not cover all edge cases (e.g., missing .env), but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the primary action and then provide a specific detail about the effect on .env. No redundant or irrelevant information is included.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and its side effect. It could mention success/failure reporting, but the core functionality and context are sufficiently covered.

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?

The only parameter, projectDir, is fully described in the input schema with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already explains the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Revoke'), a clear resource ('the durable agent token'), and adds a parenthetical '(disconnect)' plus an explicit effect ('Removes SPAWN_AGENT_KEY from project .env after success'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like spawn_init or spawn_exec.

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 clear context by stating the tool is for revoking a durable agent token and includes the purpose '(disconnect)'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use case is evident and sufficient for a focused revocation operation.

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