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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) it adds three concrete facts: the effect is deferred to next use (so in-flight sessions may survive), the required 'repo' scope, and that the action is audit-logged. These are exactly the operational details annotations cannot express.

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 zero filler: purpose and key first, effect second, prerequisites and side effects last. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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-param destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, id provenance, timing of effect, auth scope, and audit trail. The only gap is that it does not state explicitly that revocation is irreversible / the token cannot be restored, which matters for an agent weighing a destructive action.

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 single param is documented as 'Token id', so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by naming the tool that produces a valid id, telling the agent where to source the value rather than guessing.

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 (Revoke), a precise resource class (fine-grained repository tokens), and the keying mechanism (by id). The phrase 'repository tokens' plus the pointer to merjax_list_repo_tokens separates it from the many sibling revoke/rotate token tools such as merjax_revoke_token, merjax_revoke_all_credentials, and merjax_rotate_token.

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?

Tells the agent where the id comes from (merjax_list_repo_tokens), which is the main practical precondition for invoking it. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling revoke tools (e.g. personal tokens vs all credentials), so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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