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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses soft-revoke semantics ('the row stays for traceability and the token is rejected immediately'), idempotency, and the permission requirement. This adds deep behavioral context that helps the agent predict side effects and access needs.

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 packs a lot of information into two compact sentences: scope, ownership, holder scope, use case, soft-revoke behavior, idempotency, and permission requirements. Every clause adds value with no redundancy.

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's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description fully covers prerequisites, behavior, and use case. It even addresses edge cases like holder scope and soft-revoke, making it self-sufficient for correct usage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so both slug and tokenId are already documented. The tool description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 begins with 'Revoke a PROJECT-scoped API token on a project you own' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by clarifying 'any holder's, not just your own' and framing it as an 'account-owner kill switch', clearly setting it apart from tools like revoke_api_key.

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 indicates the tool is for revoking project tokens on projects you own and frames it as a kill switch for leaked or retired tokens. It also states a hard prerequisite: 'Requires an ACCOUNT-scoped token and the `config` scope.' It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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