writ_revoke

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the immediate effect, that revocation overrides live grants and tenant policy, that it requires a sponsor token, and that it is tenant-scoped. It omits whether the action is reversible or how to undo it (cf. writ_reinstate), which leaves a meaningful behavioral gap.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the access restriction and the core effect, then rationale, then scope, then auth requirement. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety/destructive profile plus auth requirements are covered. The residual gap is parameter meaning at 0% schema coverage, which is the one thing an agent still cannot infer.

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 0% with two required parameters (sponsor_id, agent_id), and the description never explains what either identifier is or how sponsor_id relates to the authenticated WRIT_SPONSOR_TOKEN. The word 'principal' gestures at agent_id but adds no real semantic content beyond the schema.

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 precise verb+resource+effect: 'Kill switch: immediately deny all future checks for this principal.' The scope ('Scoped to your tenant') and the contrast with siblings writ_check/writ_grant are clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from writ_reinstate and writ_grant without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions ('compromised, misbehaving, or its task is done') and an access precondition ('SPONSOR ONLY', 'Requires WRIT_SPONSOR_TOKEN'). It stops short of naming the recovery alternative (writ_reinstate) or stating when not to revoke, so it is strong but not fully alternative-aware.

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