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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds valuable context by stating that matching access/refresh tokens are invalidated. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the broader impact. It does not, however, discuss irreversibility or failure behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool is simple, but the missing explanation of confirmConsentId and lack of any success/failure expectations create a noticeable gap. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the description itself is not fully self-sufficient for a tool with two required parameters.

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 0%, and the description only alludes to consentId via 'by id'. The confirmConsentId parameter is completely unexplained, likely serving as a confirmation mechanism, but the agent must guess its purpose. This is a significant gap given the tool requires two IDs.

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 ('Revoke'), a resource ('MCP consent'), and a clear scope ('by id'), while also noting the consequence of invalidating tokens. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like mcp.access.list, which only lists consents.

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 context implies this tool is for revoking a specific consent, and there are no close alternative tools among siblings (e.g., mcp.access.list is for listing). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or reference alternatives, so it stops 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.