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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key effect (access tokens are revoked, i.e. a destructive/auth-affecting operation), which is more than nothing. But it omits reversibility, whether stored data is preserved, whether re-authorization is required afterward, and behavior when not connected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive action as the first word and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 zero-parameter, no-output tool this is close to sufficient: the agent knows exactly what the call does. Minor gaps remain around post-revocation state and error conditions, which matter for an agent deciding whether to re-authenticate.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to compensate for, and the schema is empty and self-explanatory.

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 ("Revoke") plus a precise resource ("this agent's access tokens for the connected Lahze account"). This is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like get_connection_status or get_authorization_url, though it never names them explicitly.

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 it when you want to sever the Lahze connection — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of checking get_connection_status first, and no note about what to do if no connection exists.

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