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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the effect is immediate, dependent Zaps/workflows break, their subscriptions are removed, and the call always returns a human approval link (an auth/approval requirement). These are exactly the 'what gets destroyed' and 'auth needs' details that annotations cannot carry.

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 tight sentences: the destructive consequence is front-loaded and the approval-link behavior follows. No filler, no repetition of the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it still flags the approval link. The only real hole is the undocumented 'id' parameter and the lack of disambiguation from the other revoke_* siblings, which is a minor but real completeness gap.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description carries the full burden — and it says nothing about what the id is (token ID, token string, prefix, connector vs CLI token identifier). The gap between the low coverage and the absent compensation keeps this below the baseline.

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 (revoke) plus resource (token), and the title narrows the resource to 'connector or CLI token', which implicitly separates it from revoke_api_key, revoke_sync_token, and revoke_agent. Sibling differentiation is present but only via the title rather than the description body.

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?

"Stop a token immediately" conveys urgency but gives no when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing among the four near-identical revoke_* siblings (token vs api_key vs sync_token vs agent). An agent must guess which revoke tool matches its target credential type.

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