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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key consequence (endpoint submissions are rejected) and that credentials are needed, but omits whether the revoke is irreversible/final, whether calling it on an already-revoked token errors or is idempotent, whether auth beyond the token is required, and what the response contains.

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, front-loaded with the action and its effect, with zero filler. The credential requirement sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema's required list but still reads efficiently overall.

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 destructive, unannotated mutation with no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the core effect but leaves notable gaps: irreversibility/idempotency, the undocumented operationId parameter, and the failure modes. It is adequate to attempt the call but not complete enough to reason about safety.

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%, so the description must compensate. It restates that monitorId and monitorToken are required but adds no format, provenance, or sourcing guidance beyond the property names, and the third parameter (operationId, optional, 1-200 chars) is entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Immediately revoke a private push monitor token') and adds the concrete effect ('Future submissions to its HTTP endpoint are rejected'), which clearly separates it from monitor_create/status/history and from workspace_revoke. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource and consequence are specific enough for an agent to identify the operation.

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 context is only implied: 'Immediately revoke' suggests an urgent security/cleanup scenario, and the sibling workspace_token_rotate hints at an alternative workflow, but the description never says when to choose revocation over rotation or what preconditions apply. An agent can infer intent but receives no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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