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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of context the annotations do not: the revocation takes effect immediately (no grace period) and the caller must be a workspace owner, which is actionable auth information. It stops short of saying whether a revoked token can be restored or what happens to in-flight activity, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action plus the immediacy qualifier are front-loaded ahead of the permission constraint.

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 whose annotations already declare idempotency and destructiveness, the definition covers action, target, timing and authorization. The only material gap is the downstream consequence of revocation (whether dependent connections break or tokens can be reissued), which an agent might want before calling it.

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% and the single parameter carries a documented pattern, so the schema already does the work. The phrase 'by its connection_id' only restates the parameter name and adds no format or sourcing detail. 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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('revoke a DenkOps connection token') and names the identifier used to target it, so the operation is unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly contrast with adjacent siblings like regenerate_connection or update_connection_scopes, but the verb 'revoke' is distinct enough to separate it from listing or creation tools.

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?

'Workspace owners only' establishes a prerequisite for use, which is real guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over regenerate_connection (rotate vs. kill) or what situation warrants immediate revocation, so the choice between siblings is left to inference.

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