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

Annotations already convey that this is destructive and not read-only, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. 'Immediately' provides a timing detail, but the description does not clarify side effects such as whether active sessions/tokens become invalid or whether revocation is reversible. This is thin but not redundant.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word earns its place, and the core action is immediately visible.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the name, description, and annotations cover the basic invocation adequately. However, the lack of output behavior and the absence of guidance for distinguishing this from sibling revoke/rotate tools leave some gaps. It is minimally viable for a low-complexity tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter, but it never mentions the parameter at all. An agent can infer that 'id' is the credential identifier from the tool name, but no format, type, or required semantics are explained beyond the schema's length constraints.

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 a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('a credential'), and 'immediately' adds a useful sense of urgency. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like rotate_credential or revoke_authority, though the resource name helps differentiate it from webhook/authority revocation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use revoke_credential versus rotate_credential, revoke_authority, or revoke_webhook. No prerequisites, follow-up actions, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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