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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the app is revoked/deleted but does not state irreversibility, whether the end user's access is cut off immediately, required permissions, or whether the operation can be undone — critical details for a destructive action.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the sparse structure also reflects the missing detail rather than disciplined brevity.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. An agent lacks the safety context (irreversibility, prerequisites) and parameter sourcing needed to invoke it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter detail. The names auth_token and app_id are suggestive, but nothing clarifies which app_id format is expected, whether app_id comes from mcp_list_connected_apps, or what auth_token should contain, leaving the description unable to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (revoke/delete) and resource (MCP client app connected to this account), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, reference the sibling mcp_list_connected_apps that would supply the app_id, so the operation isn't distinguished from its alternatives.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. that the app must already be connected), and no pointer to mcp_list_connected_apps for obtaining the app_id. The agent must infer all usage context from the tool name alone.

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