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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses that revoking kills future calls with the current credential, which is the blast-radius fact an agent needs before invoking a self-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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The action is front-loaded and the consequence follows immediately, which is exactly the ordering an agent needs for a destructive tool.

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 no-param tool whose annotations carry destructiveness and idempotency, and with no output schema to explain, the description covers what the tool does and what happens afterward. The only real gap is not pointing at rotate_credential as the way to restore access.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters with an empty, closed schema, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter claims are made or needed.

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 the current long-lived agent credential") and scopes it to the caller's own credential. It does not name the obvious sibling rotate_credential, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being routed explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the consequence sentence (later calls fail until a new credential is issued), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or direction to rotate_credential as the recovery/alternative path. The agent is left to infer the decision rule.

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