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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: destruction is deferred ('stops working on its next use'), irreversible ('cannot be undone'), authorized by specific scopes ('admin' for PATs, 'repo' for others), and audited. This is exactly the kind of disclosure an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler: action first, then irreversibility, then the type enum, then auth scopes and audit note. Every sentence carries operational weight.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what is needed: what it does, that it is irreversible, which types apply, and what scopes are required. Nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already spells out both `id` and `type` (including the glc_/gcft_/gcdt_ prefixes). The description repeats that same type information rather than extending it, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads a specific verb+resource: 'Revoke one of your tokens by type and id.' The three token types are enumerated, so scope is unambiguous. It loses a point for not distinguishing itself from the sibling gluecron_revoke_repo_token, which appears to cover an overlapping case.

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?

Implied usage is clear (revoke a token you no longer want active) and the required scopes per token type are stated, which helps an agent decide if it can call it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to revoke versus gl030_rotate_token or gl030_revoke_repo_token, leaving sibling routing to inference.

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