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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real substance: revocation is logged, historical entries retain the member's name, and nothing is deleted. It does not address whether revocation is reversible, what happens on a second call (idempotentHint=false), or what error an unknown member yields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its immediate effect. The trailing "Effects: member token revoked" largely restates the first sentence and is the one mildly expendable line.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description says enough to call it safely, including that data is preserved. Gaps remain around reversibility and repeat-call behavior, which matter given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description never clarifies whether "name" is a display name, identifier, or token reference, adding nothing over the schema text "The member to revoke."

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Revoke a member's token") with the immediate effect stated. It doesn't name a sibling (e.g., core_invite, core_members) to contrast with, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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?

Usage is only implied: revoke when you want a member's link to stop working. There is no explicit guidance about when to revoke versus hold, invite again, or list members via core_members, and no stated prerequisites.

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