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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses three concrete behaviors: revocation is effective on the token's next use, the 'repo' scope is required, and the action is audit-logged. Those are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and none are in the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by effect, auth requirement, and audit note. Every clause conveys distinct information and nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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 mutation with annotations already declaring the destructive profile and no output schema required, the description covers action, id source, effect timing, permissions, and auditability. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'id' as the token id. The description adds only the provenance of that id (from gluecron_list_repo_tokens), which is mildly useful but not a semantic enrichment of the field itself; 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (revoke a repository token) and scopes it precisely ('fine-grained repository tokens by id'). It also points at the sibling gluecron_list_repo_tokens as the source of the id, distinguishing it from create/delete siblings.

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?

Gives the prerequisite path for obtaining the id (from gluecron_list_repo_tokens) and the required 'repo' scope, which tells the agent when it can successfully call. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as gluecron_revoke_runner or gluecron_delete_repo, so it falls short of a 5.

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