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 states only that authorization/validation matches other surfaces, which is vague; it omits whether revocation is permanent, what happens to tokens already issued, error conditions, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded and not bloated. However, the second sentence about website/API/CLI parity does not earn its place because it conveys no actionable information about invoking the 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?

This is a destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation. The description discloses nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or outcome, so an agent lacks the information needed to call it safely.

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?

Both parameters have UUID formats but 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place meaning could be added. It says nothing about what 'id' identifies (the credential) or how workspaceId scopes the operation, leaving the caller to infer.

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 is essentially the tool name restated ('SAGOT credentials.revoke'), a dotted identifier rather than a statement of what the tool does. It never says it revokes a specific credential or what a revoked credential becomes; the second sentence adds no purpose information.

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 indication of when to call this versus credentials_create, credentials_list, or similar revoke tools like invitations_revoke or members_revoke. The only context given ('same authorization and validation as website, API and CLI') is not usage guidance.

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