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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds real value by enumerating what is destroyed (pairing, owner access, claim recovery) and disclosing that revocation succeeds even while the browser is offline — a non-obvious behavioral trait.

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 sentence with the destructive scope front-loaded and the offline caveat trailing. No filler, no redundancy with the 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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a destructive irreversible mutation the description omits prerequisites (valid control token, authorization) and whether the revocation can be undone, leaving an agent with partial context.

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?

There is one required parameter, controlToken, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining it — and it says nothing about what the token is, where to obtain it, or what happens if it is invalid. The coverage gap is completely unaddressed.

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 ('Revokes') and enumerates the exact resources affected: screen pairing, owner access, and claim recovery. This distinguishes it well from siblings like claim_canvas and pairing_status, though it never names an alternative 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named (e.g., claim_canvas as the inverse, or pairing_status for checking state first). The offline note hints at a situational advantage but does not rise to routing guidance.

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