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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact side effects (sets revoked_at, disables the Better Auth oauthClient, stamps outstanding access/refresh tokens), the auth requirement (company API key aa_... or MCP OAuth token), the success signal (ok true), and the failure mode (error result with code not_found for missing or already-revoked clients). It also states the non-destructive-to-the-row behavior, which usefully refines destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the when-to-use condition, then layered with side effects, auth, return values and the REST equivalent. It is longer than most single-parameter tools need, but nearly every sentence conveys actionable information rather than filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the return contract (ok true, not_found error), the auth prerequisites, the mutation semantics, and the REST equivalent. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the semantics, including the public-vs-internal id distinction. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Soft-revoke an OIDC relying-party client for the authenticated company') and immediately qualifies the scope as soft rather than hard delete. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling oauth_client_create and the REST route it mirrors.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition: 'Use this when an app should no longer authorize or refresh tokens.' It also clarifies a boundary (does not delete the row; revoked clients still appear in REST list). It stops short of naming a sibling tool as the alternative, but no delete counterpart exists in the sibling set, so coverage is effectively complete.

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