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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the immediate effect and that the token will stop working, but doesn't mention irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects. This is adequate but lacks depth for a destructive action.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and how to prepare. It doesn't describe return behavior, but that's not critical for a revocation action. Minor gap: could mention success/failure indicators, but overall complete for its complexity.

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 schema already documents token_id with a helpful description ('ID of the token to revoke (from list_tokens)') and coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the origin of the ID but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 clearly states the action ('Revoke') and the resource ('API token'), with a specific effect ('The token will stop working'). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_token and list_tokens, and even from revoke_mailbox_credential by explicitly naming 'API token'.

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 description provides a clear prerequisite: using list_tokens to find token IDs. This contextual guidance helps the agent know how to obtain required input. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative revocation paths, so it stops short of a full 5.

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