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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, openWorld false), and the description adds a trait they do not: that revocation is immediate and gated behind a confirmToken. It still omits whether access tokens are invalidated, whether the action is reversible, or what a failure looks like.

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, no filler, with the action and its immediacy front-loaded before the token prerequisite. Every clause carries information.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and no annotations about confirmation, the description is adequate but thin: it does not explain the CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED round-trip or the effect on the app's grants. The schema fills in sourcing of both parameters, which keeps it at a minimum-viable level.

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 both clientId and confirmToken are already documented in structured form. The description only re-asserts confirmToken as required, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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 a connected app") and adds an immediacy qualifier, which distinguishes it from revoke_api_key and revoke_invite via the "connected app" object. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

"Needs a confirmToken" implies a two-step confirmation flow and, together with the schema's "Client id from list_connections", signals the prerequisites. It does not say when to prefer this over revoke_api_key/revoke_invite or when not to call it.

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