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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond that: exactly what gets revoked (secret code and capability token) and what is preserved (owner access). This clarifies the blast radius of the destructive action.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately states the key qualifier about owner access. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail; every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description is complete: it states what is revoked, what is preserved, and the schema fully documents the required label. No output schema is present, but a revocation tool's return value is not essential for correct invocation. The annotations cover the remaining safety context.

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%; the label parameter is already well documented as 'Label of the link whose credentials should be revoked.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but it does reinforce the purpose of the parameter by tying it to credential revocation. Baseline 3 is 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 names a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('active secret code and capability token'), and adds a boundary condition ('keeping owner access intact') that distinguishes it from broader access-revocation siblings like stop_remote. It is immediately clear what this tool does and what it uniquely handles.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to revoke a link's active credentials without removing owner access. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as renew_link or stop_remote, but the scoping phrase provides enough guidance for a competent agent to select it over those alternatives.

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