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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds specificity about what is actually destroyed (revoked access plus deleted stored credentials) and the confirmation gate, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 with the destructive action and followed by the confirmation requirement. No filler or 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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It omits only post-condition details such as irreversibility or whether re-authorization is needed later.

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% and the single 'confirm' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds nothing about parameter format or constraints.

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: revokes Google access and deletes stored credentials. This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from every sibling tool (none of which touch credentials or auth state).

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 notes the user must confirm, which is a prerequisite, but it does not articulate when to invoke this versus alternatives (e.g., a re-auth flow) or what happens afterwards. Usage is implied rather than guided, and the confirmation requirement largely restates the schema's 'ask the user first'.

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