Revoke consent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It hints at a limitation regarding used sessions ('已使用的会话不会被此工具伪装成未使用'), but this phrasing is opaque and does not clarify permissions required, reversibility, or side effects on the consent record.

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 short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. The second sentence is somewhat awkwardly phrased, slightly reducing clarity, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It states the core action and one ambiguous behavioral note, but omits necessary details about authentication, effects on existing consents, and how to supply the required receipt ID.

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%, and the description never mentions the single required parameter 'consent_receipt_id' nor explains how to obtain or format it. The only hint is the abstract concept of an authorization, which does not compensate for the complete lack of 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 uses a specific verb (撤销/revoke) and resource (尚未使用的体验授权/unused experience authorization), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool such as get_consent_status, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 qualifier '尚未使用的' (not yet used) implies the tool should be used only for unused authorizations, which is useful context. However, it does not state when to choose this over alternatives like get_consent_status, nor does it clearly describe prerequisites or exclusions.

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