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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the word "permanently", which usefully reinforces irreversibility but does not explain side effects such as sessions or keys derived from the token being invalidated.

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?

One short sentence with the destructive qualifier front-loaded; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. A note on what happens when revoking an already-revoked or expired token would close the remaining gap, though idempotentHint already signals that case.

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% and the sole parameter is documented in-schema, including a pointer to list_tokens as the source of IDs. The description says "by ID" but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

A specific verb plus resource ("revoke an API token") that is unambiguous against siblings such as create_token and list_tokens. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action is distinct enough that no differentiation text is needed.

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 only implied: the agent must infer that this is the way to invalidate a token rather than delete it. There is a helpful implicit pointer via the schema's "from list_tokens", but no stated preconditions (ownership, admin scope) or when-not guidance.

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