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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds two real behavioral facts: access and refresh tokens 'stop at once' (immediate effect) and a connection reaching all of a worker's shops 'ends everywhere' (scope propagation). It still omits irreversibility/undo and whether audit logging occurs, but the primary destructive semantics are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the object. The third sentence ('A connection that reaches all of that worker's shops ends everywhere') is slightly convoluted but does add scope information rather than waste. No filler overall.

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?

The mutation behavior is reasonably covered and an output schema exists for return values, but with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter descriptions, the description should at least disambiguate shop_id vs connection_id. That gap keeps it at minimum-viable adequacy for a destructive tool.

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 0%, and the description never names shop_id or connection_id or explains their format, even though it implies shop-scoping through 'all of that worker's shops'. The agent must open the schema to learn what to supply, so the description adds little parameter meaning.

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 a specific resource ('an outside agent a worker connected through OAuth'). This distinguishes it from the sibling keys_revoke, but it does not name that sibling or any other OAuth-connection alternative, so the agent must infer the split. The parenthetical scope and the affected subject are clear.

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 phrase '(owner only)' is a permission gate rather than a usage rule, and it never says when to call this instead of keys_revoke or keys_connections. The OAuth-connection phrasing implicitly restricts it to connection-based credentials, which is useful, but no explicit when-not is given.

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