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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: soft-revoke (row retained for traceability), immediate token rejection, idempotency, and auth/scope requirements. This goes well beyond what structured data provides and gives an agent accurate expectations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action, then covers soft-revoke behavior, idempotency, and auth in a few dense sentences. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the action, behavioral side effects, auth requirements, and idempotency, which is strong for a destructive tool. There is no output schema and the description does not mention the return value, but for a revocation tool this is a minor omission. Overall it is nearly complete for deciding when and how to call it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that slug refers to a project you own and that tokenId is a management token, but it does not add substantial parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. The additional context about scope and ownership is useful but does not specifically enrich either parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: revoke a PROJECT-scoped management token. It clearly differentiates from siblings like revoke_api_key by emphasizing project scope and the account-owner kill-switch purpose. It also clarifies the unusual capability of revoking any holder's token on a project you own, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description gives clear context for when to use it: as an account-owner kill switch for a leaked or retired integration's management token. It also states the required auth context (ACCOUNT-scoped token and config scope). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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