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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, is idempotent, and is non-destructive. The description adds the specific behavioral detail that it revokes the stored token and clears local auth state, which goes beyond the generic annotation hints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 primary action ('Revoke...') and adds the secondary effect ('clear local auth state') without wasted words. The structure is efficient and immediately scannable.

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 zero-parameter authentication mutation, the description fully covers what the tool does. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and the sibling tools provide sufficient surrounding 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema reflects this with 100% coverage. There is nothing for the description to add, and the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 the specific verb 'revoke' and identifies the resource ('stored Leafwright MCP token') plus the additional action 'clear local auth state'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools leafwright_login (acquire token) and leafwright_auth_status (check state).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The usage context is implied by the sibling names and the straightforward logout action, but there is no explicit guidance about when-not-to-use or alternative selection.

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