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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds crucial details: immediate invalidation, no replacement issued, and specific auth prerequisites. It also discloses expected error conditions, which is beyond what annotations cover.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action and effect, then efficiently covers auth, errors, and related tools in a second sentence. Every sentence adds value without 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 destructive operation, it fully covers prerequisites (B2B), how to obtain the required tokenId, what to expect on success/failure, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The description reinforces the source of tokenId and the default behavior of appId, but adds little new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It earns a 4 for the useful cross-reference to list-v2.

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 clearly states the action ('permanently revoke'), the resource ('app token'), and the identifier ('by tokenId'), and immediately conveys the consequence (stops working, auth failures). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rotate (revoke-and-replace) and list (source of tokenId).

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?

It provides explicit context: B2B mode requirement, error codes for common failure scenarios, and points to related tools (list for tokenId, rotate for revoke-and-replace). This gives the agent clear guidance on when to use this tool and what alternatives exist.

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