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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: irreversibility ('cannot be restored, only replaced'), the mandatory confirmation protocol, the specific failure modes (TOKEN_NOT_FOUND, TOKEN_AMBIGUOUS, mismatched confirmation) with the guarantee nothing is revoked, and that dryRun needs the same privilege as the deletion.

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?

Front-loaded with the irreversible warning and confirmation requirement in the first two sentences, and information-dense throughout. It runs long, and the trailing get_integration_guide instruction is arguably tangential to the revoke action, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 output schema, the description supplies everything needed: safety protocol, irreversibility, failure semantics, preview behavior, and named sibling prerequisites. An agent can invoke it correctly on the first try without further exploration.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by making the interplay explicit: confirm must equal the exact token name and is not needed with dryRun, and dryRun reveals privileges, last use, and whether the token backs the current connection. It adds workflow meaning rather than just restating parameter docs.

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 and resource ('Revoke an API token by NAME') plus the scope of impact ('permanently disabling every client authenticating with it'). It names the counterpart sibling create_api_token and the prerequisite sibling list_api_tokens, so an agent can place it precisely among the many delete/remove siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit ordered workflow: list the tokens first, then call with confirm set to the exact token name, and only after the user has explicitly agreed. It also states when to use dryRun (preview first) and when to call get_integration_guide, covering both alternatives and preconditions.

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