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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the token becomes invalid immediately, and the response field 'revoked' reports whether the revocation actually took effect.

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 dense sentence with the login requirement front-loaded, followed by prerequisite, effect, and return semantics. Compact and front-loaded, with only minor density from the multiple semicolon-separated clauses.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the login requirement, the prerequisite call, the destruction consequence, and the return-field meaning. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single deviceId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent where the deviceId comes from (list_my_devices) and clarifying the meaning of the 'revoked' result, going beyond the bare '设备 id' schema text.

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 resource (my device), and explicitly names the sibling list_my_devices as the source of the deviceId. An agent can distinguish this from nearby tools like revoke_cooperation_share or list_my_devices without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite and routing hint: log in first, then call list_my_devices to obtain the deviceId before revoking. This is actionable context, though it does not state any when-not-to-use condition or alternative path.

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