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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the action revokes the current token, which is useful, but it does not disclose consequences like permanence, effect on active sessions, or authentication requirements. With annotations present, the description is adequate but not rich.

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 seven-word sentence that front-loads the key verb and object. There is no filler, and every word contributes to the 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?

For a simple revocation action, the core intent is clear, but the description leaves some ambiguity about whether the connectionToken parameter is required and what happens if omitted. It also does not mention the success or error response, which is relevant given no output schema. Still, the action is straightforward and an agent can likely invoke it correctly with the schema.

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?

The schema provides a full description for the single parameter ('Current connection token'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description only restates that it revokes the Orbit connection token and does not add new details about format, origin, or whether the parameter is required. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Revoke') and a distinct resource ('Orbit connection token'), making the tool's action unambiguous. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling connect_orbit, and the title reinforces the intent.

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 action itself implies usage when an Orbit connection token needs to be invalidated, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool or name alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this would be inappropriate.

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