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

The annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those hints: the client must reconnect and consent again, and the operation always returns a human approval link. It stops short of detailing auth requirements or downstream effects, but provides substantial behavioral clarity.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded. The consequence and return behavior follow immediately, making it easy to scan.

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 destructive operation with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key agent needs: where to get the id, what the revoke does, and the human approval flow. It could mention permission requirements more explicitly, but it is largely complete.

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 0% and the only parameter is 'id', described solely as a string in the schema. The description adds valuable meaning by explicitly stating the id comes from fillo_list_agents, telling the agent where to obtain it.

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') and resource ('an MCP client's access'), making it easy to distinguish from generic token or member revocation siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the combination of verb, resource and id source is clear.

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 implied: call this to revoke an MCP client, and the id comes from fillo_list_agents. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with related revoke tools, so it is minimum viable guidance.

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