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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that after revocation the agent must sign in again, revealing the main consequence of the action. It does not detail token invalidation timing or irreversibility, but the core effect is transparent.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action, includes the parameter source in parentheses, and adds the reconnection consequence. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter revocation tool, the description covers what the tool does, how to get the parameter, and what happens afterward. It is slightly light on potential error cases or confirmation behavior, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, but the description compensates by explicitly naming the parameter (client_id) and telling the agent where to get it (from get_connected_agents). For a single required parameter, this is sufficient practical guidance even though format details are not specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Revoke') and a specific resource ('OAuth-connected agent's access'), making the action unmistakable. It also clarifies the source of the required client_id by referencing get_connected_agents, which distinguishes this from the read-only sibling tool.

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?

The parenthetical instructs the agent to obtain client_id from get_connected_agents, providing a clear workflow for when to use this tool. It lacks explicit exclusion criteria or comparison with alternatives, but the intended usage is well implied.

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