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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds genuinely new context: what survives (public identity and history persist), what is lost (no recovery credential), and the auth requirement (bearer token in the Authorization header).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the effect, then consequences, then auth. No filler or repetition; each sentence carries a distinct fact the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers irreversibility, post-state, and auth, which is nearly everything needed for a zero-parameter destructive call; the missing piece is routing guidance against rotate_token.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly notes that authentication comes from the HTTP Authorization header rather than from any schema field, which is the only parameter-like input and is not represented in the empty schema.

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 and resource ('invalidates the current token') with the scope qualifier 'immediately'. It is distinguishable from read/list siblings, but it never names rotate_token, the obvious neighboring alternative for keeping the same identity, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 implied rather than stated: the irreversibility ('no recovery credential after revocation in this release') signals this is a terminal action, which tells the agent when it is appropriate. However, there is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance and no mention of rotate_token as the non-destructive alternative.

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