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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the destructive annotation: revocation is immediate and permanent, future calls fail, only a human can issue a replacement, and billing is not cancelled. These consequences are exactly what an agent needs before invoking a destructive self-revocation.

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 three short sentences with no wasted wording. Critical information, including permanence and replacement constraints, is front-loaded.

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 parameterless destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential missing context: permanence, future authentication failure, human-only replacement, and billing scope. Nothing material appears to be omitted.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and no additional explanation is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'revoke the current agent token.' It is clearly scoped to the calling token itself, which distinguishes it from sibling inventory tools such as list_agent_tokens.

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 makes the use case clear: disconnect the current agent by permanently revoking its token. It also clarifies the downstream consequence, but it does not explicitly state when this should be preferred over simply stopping use of the token, though no direct sibling alternative exists.

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