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

Goes well beyond the supplied destructiveHint=true / readOnlyHint=false annotations: it discloses the timing semantics ('stops working on its next use'), that the action is irreversible, the required authorization scope per token type, and that the action is audit-logged. These are exactly the facts an agent needs before triggering a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded with the action and irreversibility warning, followed by the type enumeration and scope rules. No filler, and each clause carries operational information.

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 everything material: what it does, when the effect lands, that it cannot be undone, the enumeration of types, per-type permissions, and auditability.

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 lists the three type values, so the baseline is met by structure alone. The description still adds genuine value by mapping each type to its token prefix (glc_, gcft_, gcdt_) and to its required scope, which the schema does not carry.

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 ('Revoke one of your tokens') plus the exact lookup keys (type and id), so an agent knows precisely what action is being taken and on what object.

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?

The description explains the semantics of `type` and the scope prerequisites, which effectively guides selection among token kinds. However, it never addresses how this differs from close siblings such as merjax_revoke_repo_token, merjax_rotate_token, or merjax_revoke_all_credentials, leaving a real ambiguity for the repo-token case (type=repo vs the dedicated revoke tool) unresolved.

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