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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the action is revoking ALL tokens, implying destructiveness, but it does not detail side effects, irreversibility, rate limits, or what happens after revocation (e.g., need to re-authenticate). More transparency is needed for a security-sensitive 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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no wasted words. The description earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and usage context. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., confirmation, undo), making it minimally complete for 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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level meaning (there are none), which is acceptable. However, it could have explicitly stated that no parameters are required for clarity.

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?

The description clearly states the action (revoke), the resource (MCP tokens under parent account), and the scenario (suspected misuse). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which handle token revocation.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'if you suspect an AI agent has misused your access.' No alternatives are mentioned, but given sibling list, no other token revoke tool exists, so this is clear context.

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