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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key consequence: assistants using the client can no longer sign in or refresh tokens. It also names the auth requirement. It stops short of stating reversibility or whether existing tokens are invalidated immediately versus at expiry.

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 tight sentence with the precondition front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause 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?

For a one-parameter revoke with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and the downstream effect. It is nearly complete; the missing pieces are how to find the ID and whether revocation is reversible.

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%, so the single 'id' parameter is undocumented structurally. The description partially compensates by identifying it as the OAuth client ID the caller created, but adds no format, source, or lookup detail for actually obtaining that ID.

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) and resource (an OAuth client ID), and scopes it with 'you created'. It distinguishes itself from the nearby assistants_revoke and credentials_revoke by naming the exact object being revoked, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 'Signed-in session only' line gives a precondition and 'you created' implies a scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance and no pointer to assistants_clients_list for resolving the ID. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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