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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key side effect ('existing tokens are not deleted but no new authorizations will be allowed'), but says nothing about permission/auth requirements, reversibility, or the response, so coverage is partial.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the non-obvious consequence. No filler and nothing wasted.

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 single-parameter mutation with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the important token/authorization behavior. Only usage guidance and permission prerequisites are absent, which is a minor gap.

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 100% for the single client_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The phrase 'by its numeric ID' mirrors the schema and adds no meaning beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Revoke one of your OAuth2 clients') and scopes it to a numeric ID, making it immediately distinguishable from create_oauth_client and list_oauth_clients by verb alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no named alternative (e.g., list_oauth_clients to obtain the ID, or revoke_agent_key), and no stated prerequisites. The reader can infer the operation but is given no routing or context for choosing this tool.

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