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 well on irreversibility ('cannot be undone') and blast radius (individual contract and monitor tokens are not revoked), but says nothing about authorization requirements, whether the workspace and its contracts stop working immediately, or what happens to in-flight operations.

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 tight sentence with the destructive nature front-loaded, and the scope caveat appended where it is most useful. Zero filler; only weakness is packing two distinct ideas into one sentence without a separator.

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 an irreversible, annotation-free, two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers consequences but not the inputs. An agent could invoke it but might mis-supply operationId or be unsure of preconditions such as required permission level.

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 and it does not. workspaceToken is only indirectly implied by the title wording, and operationId — arguably the more ambiguous parameter — gets no explanation at all, leaving the agent to guess whether it is an idempotency key, a correlation id, or something else.

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) and a specific resource (workspace API token), plus the consequence of disabling workspace-level operations. It is distinguishable from monitor_revoke by the 'workspace' qualifier, but it never explicitly contrasts the two or names any alternative.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as monitor_revoke or workspace_token_rotate. The only guidance is implicit scoping: it operates at workspace level and does not touch individual contract/monitor tokens, which helps an agent avoid over-broad assumptions but doesn't route it between tools.

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